Talk:Foreign relations of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreign relations of the United States article.
WikiProject Politics This article is related to the WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..
To-do list for Foreign relations of the United States: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Introduce neutral point of view into the article.
  2. Cite verifiable secondary sources.
  3. Discuss options for pictures with a subject other than President Bush.
  4. Work on the article as much possible in preparation for a peer review.
(Relatively in that order)
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is supported by the United States WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Unacceptable

This page is just not acceptable: it does not cover the subject or deal competently with those few items it outlines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Italo Svevo (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 September 2003 (UTC)

Agree. Can it be merged somewhere? -- Viajero 10:47, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)
Agree LtDoc 03:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-American relations

We need an intermediate page between special relationship and Foreign relations of the United Kingdom, and this page, discussing the historical nature of the relationship. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and so I started the separate page Anglo-American relations a couple months ago. Some of the content in the special relationship article should be moved there. The "special relationship" is not synonymous with Anglo-American relations. The "special relationship" is that part of Anglo-American relations which is cordial and warm; the term "special relationship" emphasizes the positive aspects of relations between the two countries. —Lowellian (talk) 15:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic critics

What relevance does the information contained in this section have to the Foreign Policy of the United States? I see the word globalization in there, but that isn't enough.--EatAlbertaBeef 05:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None that I can see. I'll go ahead and remove it. This article is in horrible shape overall. 172 14:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I agree [Sam 2006]

[edit] (...) protection of american citzens (...)

Oh, so does that mean that the govt of the US tries to protect all Cubans, Colombians, Equatorians, Chileans, Jamaicans, Argentinians, Brazilians etc etc ? A better phrasing would use the term "US citizens" or its equivalent, not american, which is highly ambiguous and culturally offensive to many.LtDoc 03:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "Merkins" myself. — JIP | Talk 19:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

what really US foreign policy, i strongly belive that there is a hidden agenda for US government, to distroy Islam, like they did about Communism. Evidences are Afghanistan, Iraq and now or later Iran. Is it true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anazcp (talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (anazcp@yahoo.co.in)

No, its not true. --EatAlbertaBeef 20:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It is not? Well, let us see some evidence then —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LtDoc (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
It could be true, but without evidence we shouldn't put it into a wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.44.151 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thats why its on the discussion page, and not on the article. What you cant do is to claim it isnt without evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LtDoc (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
claiming it isn't is much better than claiming something so extreme withotu evidence. (and the fact that the middle east is completely insane and also is mostly muslim isn't evidence) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.76.138 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Countries which have been at war with the united states since WWII

am i wrong, or shouldn't afghanistan and iraq be in this list? (iraq is, but only for 1991-99) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.113.92 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

agreed, and modified. may i also suggest that this list is controversial, and it should be modified to list the "countries with which the united states congress has declared or authorized war with since 1945" which, besides shortening the list, would make it easier to verify and universally acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coffeeflower (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I modified the list to wars that have only been recognized by Congress, as much of the previous list was pure nonsense. CJK 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that this page is ok in terms of information, but needs some more on its Foriegn Relationship with the U.S. I mean the U.S. is a pretty influential country and should be mentioned as a country that Argentina relates to in SOME way. Please talk about the beef trade, the wars, things like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.6.140 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We need a new section listing countries in which the US has intervened to topple the government, successfully or unsuccessfully, in secret coups and overt actions. Iran (Operation Ajax), Iraq (1963, 1968, 1990s), and seveal Latin American countries (Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Chile, etc.) come to mind. We could have a year and a link to the CIA operation or other Wikipedia entry for the relevant action. This is an important and recurring pattern of American foreign policy. Any takers? --NYCJosh 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

See List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. Perhaps it should be more prominently linked in the article. Kalkin 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

I have added the Aussies on as a very close ally to the United States, these two nations have always been very loyal friends and have ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural, & political links.(Khan 12:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes, they have sent troops to fight & die alongside Americans in every major war that the U.S. has been involved in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.56.111 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major biases

I shouldn't have to point this out, but this article is full of pro-American propoganda. It continually states that all foreign missions are to bring freedom and democracy to other countries. The criticism section is extremely short and carries few arguments, and most of the ones it does are shot down immediately. Is this article written by the American government? The criticisms section should be expanded, the tone of the pro-Americanism should be removed, and the article should encompass a wider array of events. It does not mention, for example, the fact of the discrepancies of the justification of the recent war with Iraq. It should mention Vietnam and Panama in reference to the human rights abuses and civilian deaths caused by American foreign relations.

--RPaleja 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Wars Timeline

Comments moved to Talk:List_of_United_States_military_history_events#Dirty_Wars_Timeline Travb (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Could there be a single picture in this article that doesn't have Bush in it? I am not trying to Bush-bash (I do that on other websites), but the foreign relations of the United States has much more important images than the ones currently up (Roosevelt with Stalin and Churchill, Reagan and Gorbachev, Nixon in China, etc.) Could someone please put some extra pictures up? I am sure some of them are already on Wikipedia. --Helmandsare 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

Real good article, thanks Wikipedia. Oops and the author.I'm impressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.26.22 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] States of war

Could someone please provide a source for the section "List of countries that have been at war with the U.S."? I thought USA had been at war with countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Panama and Afghanistan.

I also recall some strange country mr. George W. Bush calls "Terrorism", on which he declared war a couple of years ago. A province of "Terrorism" called "al-Qaida" proposed a ceasefire, but mr. Bush rejected it as "we don't negotiate with terrorists". But maybe that country shouldn't be mentioned in the article as some might consider it POV. --HJV 00:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The section has been removed, because of the much more comprehensive List_of_United_States_military_history_events. Travb (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You removed the section with my contributions. Certain things I added here are not contained in "List of US mil history events" and you did not update that list. I now have to repeat some of my work for that article. --NYCJosh 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand

There are so many objections to this article, some a few years old and some very recent, that I really don't understand why more hasn't been done to alter it. I mean, it practicaly looks like an official press release. I made some minor changes for now, but it's gonna need a lot more work before it's decent - so, could someone post a warning on the page that there are concerns the article is unbalanced/biased?? --Boszko2 12:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge vote

It has been suggested by User talk:Bmk that US history of exporting democracy should be merged with this wikiarticle, Foreign relations of the United States please vote on this below, typing:

*'''support''' or *'''oppose'''.

I am not going to vote myself. Travb (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


  • support seems to me this merge will make the article on foreign relations less biased, but it will still need work to be NPOV... --Boszko2 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • support PROVIDED, the article also contains a section of the history of U.S. undermining of democracy: toppling of democratically-elected governments, installing right-wing dictators, CIA campaigns to destabilize governments, etc. Each of the foregoing could be a separate section of the article, since there are so many examples of each. --NYCJosh 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that it is adequately covered in the Template:AmericanEmpire series already, but lets cross that bridge when it comes. Travb (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think not - that (american empire) is a pretty confusing article. more importantly, the point of the merge for me is the balancing of this article, so the issues mentioned by NYCJosh should be listed here, not just linked... --Boszko2 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • support - the article is exhaustively researched, and it is an extremely important facet of US foreign relations and US history that isn't well addressed in the Foreign relations of the United States (the only mention is in the short list of 'foreign policy goals' of the US). I agree that it could use some small editing to make the tone of the article a little more dispassionate. --Bmk 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, a possible apologist elected US history of exporting democracy be up for deletion, as I predicted. I guess 3 times for this to be voted for deletion is the charm to get me moving on the merge:
First: speedy deletion Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Please_explain_your_reasoning[1]
Second this: Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Adding_a_deletion_tag [2]
and today this:
Third: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US history of exporting democracy [3]
I never liked the idea of the merge, but the vote was 3:1, so here we are! Travb (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illicit drugs

While the US has an official policy against drugs, drug selling has been used by the CIA to raise funds on several occasions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.213.95.82 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In what specfic cases? Do you have any reputable sources verifying that accusation? If you do, that would be a very necessary addition to the article. --Iamunknown 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't vouch for this sentence, but see: Cia#Drug_trafficking Travb (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

I just tagged the main article as {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}}. I think that this article has a lot of potential, but very few editors or viewers seem to come to it. I hope that by adding the WikiProject Politics template and by tagging it the article with another notorious tag, more will come. Let's get this article to featured status! --Iamunknown 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this article to featured status! Sorry, it will never happen, it is too controversial of subject. My section on exporting democracy is sourced, every sentence, but I agree the rest of the article is not. Travb (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think now the article is of a particular POV predominately because of weasel words. If we could back up any statement of a weasel words via footnotes noting the number of books, scholars, commentators, etc. that hold that viewpoint, or if we could manage to avoid weasel words altogether, then I think that the article would be more NPOV. That, however, would talk a lot of broad knowledge that I do not have. We can try, though! --Iamunknown 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. One article in particular I am thinking of as an example of backing up weasel words/eliminating them altoghether is Jesus. (In particular, I admire the notes on said page.) It amazes me how well those editors have gotten NPOV into that article.
I agree 100%, right now I am not as interested in this article as you may be though, I have learned if you really want something done on wikipedia, you have to do it yourself. I HATE weasel words. I will add a weasel word tag to this page. In fact I hate it so much I have made a weasel word template:
WP: Avoid weasel words

Some argue.



90% of the time, everyone of the words I write is footnoted, verifiable and sourced. See: U.S.-Colombia_relations for example, which has 108 footnotes. Lodge Committee has 59. So I support your work! Travb (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-American Relations Article?

I was thinking that such an article would be highly relevant considering recent developments in U.S. policy regarding India's nuclear programme and improvements mentioned in the picture caption already on the page. However, this isn't my area of expertise in any way, so there might not be material easily accessable for such an article. For instance, much of the Sino-American Relations article involves the history of their trade. By constrast, the first thought that comes to mind when I think Indo-American trade is, how much of it was not between the Americans and the British rulers of colonial India, and thus a facet of Anglo-American trade? Thoughts, reactions? I'm very much a newbie on wikipedia, and have thusfar only corrected typos and grammatical errors, so I'm kinda out of my depth here.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/r/Talk%7EForeign_relations_of_the_United_States_594f.html"