Talk:History of the United States/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

CJK

Myself and 172 seem to dispute two paragraphs in the "The End of the Cold War" section. I have a number of objections to the way this is worded. First of all it asserts that the U.S. had "hegemony" in Europe due the Cold War but lost it at the end, but "revitalized" it because it wanted to remain at the top which it was "used to". If not ambiguous, this is POV.

No, it does not. That's an over-simplification and a strawman. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I realize that the US influenced Western Europe against communism, but this is no way "hegemony" or economic/political dominance.

I am a professional historian and I am engaged with all of the latest social science literature on the subject. The term is used in the context in which it is used in the said paragraph by scholars in just about every school of thought on international relations in a value-neutral sense. I suggest that you do not pursue this argument, as it will take us nowhere and just squander too much of our time. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So you can pursue the arguement and not me? I'm sorry if I attempted to shake your all-knowing status as a "professional historian" CJK 20 July 2005

Go do some reading. Start by going to a university library and doing a search in Jstor, a database of scholarly journal articles, and serching for "hegemony" to get a sense of how the term is used in a value-neutral sense in history and its sister social sciences. If you are unwilling to take the time to do the necessary reading, an argument from ignorance is not going to suffice to remove factual information. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hegemony: "leadership or predominant influence when exercised by one state over another."

You said that US "hegemony" gave it political and economic benefit in Europe, I do not see it. Western European states controlled their own policies. CJK 20 July 2005

Yes, they do. But keep in mind how NATO is structured and the difficulties in formulating a common foreign policy for Europe. 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

But you said POLITICAL and ECONOMIC not foreign policy. CJK 20 July 2005

They're all related. History does not occur in a vacuum. 172 | Talk 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay...tell me how exactly NATO influences European politics and economy....CJK 20 July 2005

Promoting North Atlantic integration, shaping priorities of defense industries, shaping ties with Russia... Really you should do some reading on this topic. I don't see why it's my job to do your homework. 172 | Talk 00:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Which is all foreign policy, not internal politics or economics. CJK 20 July 2005

Foreign policy affects internal politics and economics, and vice versa. It's pointless to discuss these things in a vacuum. 172 | Talk 01:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

True, but I don't see the US getting benefits from it... CJK 21 July 2005

The issue is why history unfolds the way it unfolds. "Benefits" are beyond the point. 172 | Talk 15:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

If its beyond the point why did you say:

"This status provided major political and economic benefits; to perpetuate the role and interests in the international system stated above"CJK 21 July 2005

Yes, we are talking about the liberal international system envisaged before the close of World War II by the Atlantic Charter. Please do some more background reading on U.S. history if any of this is unfamiliar to you. 172 | Talk 16:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Its very unclear what you are saying. European politicians opposed the US on a number of issues during the Cold War. And I'm still waiting to see how the US got rich off of Europe. CJK 21 July 2005

The article is not making the crude point that the 'U.S. got rich off Europe.' It is making the point that the U.S. depends on its relationship with Europe, which is indisputable considering the volume of trade with Western European countries. The U.S. is not an autarky. Even the world's most closed economy, North Korea, depends on trade and international reserves to one degree or another. 172 | Talk 16:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Then why do you insist the US got "economic benefits"? CJK 21 July 2005

Keep in mind the Great Depression, when the breakdown of the international system-- the proliferation of exchange controls and trade barriers-- led to global economic disaster. Without political and economic cooperation with the leading G8 and OECD economies, the U.S. economy would collapse, and in that sense the Trans-Atlantic alliance comes with "economic benefits" to both the U.S. and Europe. This does not imply that the relationship is exploitative. That's just the way the world works; not to resort to cliche, but we live in a global economy. 172 | Talk 16:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

But you insist US "hegemony" caused this. CJK 21 July 2005

No, I am not. But the role of the U.S. as the world's economic and military superpower is an essential pillar of the international system which no one can deny; keep in mind that if the U.S. economy collapses, the world economy collapses. Keep in mind how devastating the Great Depression in the U.S. for countries around the globe that depended on U.S. prosperity for their own economic health. 172 | Talk 17:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes but again these are benefits that could occur whether or not the US had "hegemony". I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. CJK 21 July 2005

No, we are dealing with the real world, not a hypothetical one. At any rate, these edits should clear up the confusion. [1] 172 | Talk 18:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

See these changes; they clear up this confusion. 172 | Talk 18:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your changes don't change your POV about the US "growing used to being a world power" and wanting to "reinforce" it. You've have also gone and changed hegemony to "political influence" while still implying the US wanted to keep the influence going. CJK 21 July 2005

This isn't my POV. This is just the reality of the 1990s. Do some reading on the Washington Consensus and NATO expansion. 172 | Talk 19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

On the point about the US is scheming to "re-assert" its dominance on the world is also POV even if you ignore the fact there was nothing to "re-assert" since it was already asserted.

The article is making reference to broad structural realities and institutional interests. The paragraph does not imply that anyone is "scheming" to do anything. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

More ambiguous statements and even less clarity. It says specifically:

"The United States, however, had grown dependent on its position as the world's dominant power established during the Second World War and the central importance of U.S. hegemony in Europe. This status provided major political and economic benefits; and to perpetuate the role and interests in the international system stated above, the United States has sought to reassert its power through a revitalization of the Cold War institutional structures, especially NATO."

which implies the US wanted to re-assert and along with the other statements implies scheming for corporations. CJK 20 July 2005

No it does not. And to deny is that the U.S. does not have economic interests is such an obtuse assertion that it borders on being comical. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

To many people it would. And yes, the US has economic interests. CJK 20 July 2005

We can ignore those people. All countries promote the interest of certain corporations, even Communist countries with the state monopolies. Pointing out a major agent in history is by no means a criticism of anything. 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing to "re-assert" as the US was already a world power. CJK 21 July 2005

Read the Huntington article. That's the source. 172 | Talk 15:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what source you used. You can't "re-assert" something that's already disputed.

Nothing is disputed. The article is describing how the U.S. reinforced Cold War era institutional structures like NATO following the end of the Cold War. 172 | Talk 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You said "re-asserted" not "reinforced" and in any case both descriptions defy reality. CJK 21 July 2005

Perhaps you are too young to remember, but there was a huge debate after the "fall of the Berlin Wall" about whether or not NATO and even the Trans-Atlantic Alliance on a broader level were still relevant in the new international order. You seem like a young guy, and perhaps you do not have too much experience taking history courses. You will read to learn how to do research to verify information that you find unfamiliar, rather than assuming that what you do know did not happen. 172 | Talk 16:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You said specifically "re-asserted" and gave a list of examples. Keeping NATO is not "re-asserting". NATO was already there. And exactly how was it "reinforced"? CJK 21 July 2005

For one, NATO was not dismantled but expanded. NATO was also called in to combat for the first time since its inception after the Cold War when intervening in the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia. BTW, if the word "reassert" bothers you so much-- I have no idea why-- I will change it to "reinforce," as it hardly matters one way or another. 172 | Talk 16:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How exactly was NATO "expanded" beyond the adding of certain countries? It intervened in Yugoslavia after the Cold War but that hardly counts as the continuation of US "hegemony". CJK 21 July 2005

The proposals themselves were called NATO expansion. See for yourself by going to a university library and logging onto Jstor, an online database of articles in academic journals, and doing a search for "NATO expansion," which will cover the expansion of NATO into the 1990s. BTW, "hegemony" does not imply anything "bad." It is a value-neutral social science term akin to calling the U.S. the world's sole superpower, which no one denies. In fact, many would consider this something to be proud of, and even a status that ought to be bolstered in the interests of global prosperity and democracy. [2] 172 | Talk 17:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

But many NATO nations cut funding for their militaries so this is misleading. And I am offended by the use of "hegemony" at least in the economic sense.CJK 21 July 2005

I saw your userpage and read about your concerns with "anti-Americanism." The term "hegemony" is not "anti-American." It is a value-neutral social science term. Granted it has been adopted by some left-wing propagandists to cloak their agenda with the academic credibility of the research using this term when in fact their work has no credibility, but the fact that some idiots misuse terms like "hegemony," "neoliberalism," "liberalism," "socialism," "capitalism," etc., is no reason to take important vocabulary out of the lexicon of historiography and social research. 172 | Talk 17:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Military hegemony in Europe would be fine, but political and economic not. The way it is worded would suggest that the US was power-hungry in Europe. CJK 21 July 2005

Its claimed that the US "pressures" other countries for economic reasons--also POV. I don't see a blatant example that the US applied pressure to certain (presumably Middle East States) if the corporations didn't get their way (after 1988).

Look up Washington Consensus, and, no, we are mainly not talking about the Middle East. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean we're not talking about the Mid East? What other area does the US "pressure" for corporate gain? CJK 20 July 2005

No one is saying that the U.S. pressures areas for corporate gain. Do not expect a serious answer from my part if you are going to throw loaded rhetorical questions at me. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You specifically said the US applies pressure to those who don't follow their policies:

"pressure other countries to adopt economic policies and social policies that will benefit U.S. interests" CJK 20 July 2005

And since when does "free market" automatically mean that the US is getting rich off of foreign nations?

This is a rhetorical question unrelated to the text that is not worth responding to. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"promote U.S. corporate interests by supporting policies of "free trade" and "open markets";"

Sure it's unrelated... CJK 20 July 2005

So are you saying that free trade has nothing to do with corporate interests? One would hope not. A country would not fair too well if its economic policy-makers did not consider the interests of its industries and consumers. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No...you said that "free trade" benefited America. CJK 20 July 2005

I would hope that that was the goal of the first Bush and Clinton administrations, as opposed to "hurting America." 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

More rhetoric. It didn't necessarily hurt or help America. CJK 20 July 2005

And then it goes on to say that America enforces its laws outside of the country which is so POV I don't think I can convince anyone who believes it to change their mind.

No, the paragraph is not implying that. You are failing to understand the concept of extraterritoriality in international relations. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume "extraterritoriality" to mean outside of the nations territory.CJK 20 July 2005

Stop assuming and do some reading on the concept in international relations. Copyright laws are perhaps the most notable example these days. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So the US is going to send commandos to arrest whoever breaks their copyright laws? CJK 20 July 2005

Very funny. Are you familiar with the concept of soft power? Protection of copyright laws come up in trade summits, consideration of aid, even in sanctions. 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

These are international laws, not American laws which you said in the article. CJK 20 July 2005

Who shapes "international laws?" Nation-states, including the U.S. They do not manifest from up high without reference to nations. 172 | Talk 23:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

But you said the US enforces its own laws outside the country. CJK 20 July 2005

No, I did not. Reread the sentence and do some background reading on the concept of extraterritoriality. 172 | Talk 23:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"...enforce U.S. law extraterritorially in other societies". I think it is fairly clear. CJK 20 July 2005

Yes, it is fairly clear-- the U.S. signs treaties with other coutries that make agreements on extraterritorially of certain laws and the U.S. expects that they are lived up to. Again, the citation is Huntington. Do you dispute the accuracy in his work? 172 | Talk 00:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

But those are INTERNATIONAL LAWS not regular US laws. CJK 20 July 2005

Under extraterritorially, something or someone is considered by international law (treaty) to be under the legal jurisdiction of the home country, so there is a relationship. Huntington did not make a mistake in the passage that has been cited. 172 | Talk 01:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute... what country is under legal juridiction of the US? CJK 21 July 2005

Have you read about the concept of extraterritoriality yet? If my answers don't suffice, see Huntington. 172 | Talk 15:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Extraterritoriality: "The exercise of political rights by a foreign power within a state having its own government."

And the US does not exercise its own laws in other nations. This should be re-worded as "international agreements".

Extraterritoriality means agreements to hold certain matters and individuals under the laws of one country in a foreign country. Again, this is mentioned in the context of the Huntington quotation and he was not making a mistake in the way he was using the term. 172 | Talk 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How can this be "enforced"? And again, if this was an agreement it should be called "international" not US. Maybe the US proposed it, but certainly didn't "enforce" it on any country they felt like it. CJK 21 July 2005

It is "enforced" in the sense that if the U.S. does not feel that agreements in treaties have been lived up to, it can retaliate by enacting (say) trade restrictions or sanctions, suspending aid or loans, and the like. 172 | Talk 16:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

These treaties were established by INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT. The US Congress just didn't make them up without consulting the nation in question. CJK 21 July 2005

Huntington's passage does not imply that the U.S. made them without consulting the nation in question. Whenever the term "extraterritoriality" is used, it is implied that an agreement has already been made, otherwise there would be no extraterritoriality. Huntington's passage makes reference to enforcing agreements that have already been made. If this is unclear to someone, he is probably unfamiliar with the concept; but that's no problem, he can just click on the link to extraterritoriality. 172 | Talk 17:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You worded the phrase to say enforce US laws, not agreements between nations. CJK 21 July 2005

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. See to it that U.S. laws granted extraterritoriality are enforced. Huntington is one of the world's leading experts on this subject. You weren't familiar with the term until a day ago. It was not Huntington who was making the mistake here. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you misunderstood something. No one is expected to be all-knowing. 172 | Talk 18:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally there are quotes around some policies the US promotes which creates the impression that they're all a facade to hide "corporate interests" which seem to blamed on everthing these days. I hope a compropmise can be reached, even though I doubt it. CJK 20 July 2005

The quotations belong where they are placed because the article is making reference to terms used by policy-makers and terms that made their way into the popular lexicon. You are failing to understand a simple function of quotations. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Then please put quotes around corporate interests and economic benefits as well. CJK 20 July 2005

No. Clinton, e.g., made a big campaign for "free trade" with NAFTA and GATT. No one made a campaign under the banner of "corporate interests," so there is nothing worth quoting. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Then say so instead if you're putting it in quotes. And stuff like "free trade" doesn't have to be stated as a campaign statement, it can be stated as a fact. CJK 20 July 2005

It's standard practice to put slogans in quotations. I have no idea why this is bothering you. Grammar is not an anti-U.S. conspiracy. 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Then please say who said them and remember that they don't have to be campaign slogans as many are factual. CJK 20 July 2005

Every administration makes reference to U.S. standards on human rights. NAFTA, GATT, and WTO were also campaigns for free trade. At any rate, this is a moot point since I took these terms out of quotations, despite the fact it was wrong, just so that I don't have to put up with the squabbling any longer. 172 | Talk 23:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this later, but my feeling is that the derisory language and punctuation can be altered to reflect the substance of the passage without the condescending and hostile tone. It would also seem to me that the reliance on Huntington is simply giving a more respectable face for whatever interpretations of the author, when Huntington's criticisms come in the context of a "realist" perspective on Clintonian foreign policy before anything. --TJive 20:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also, watch the reverts, CJK. In fact, I'd advise against another one simply because your first edits could be construed as a revert in a conveniently strict interpretation of the term. They don't fail to notice. --TJive 20:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Huntington

I just finished reading the actual article in question, and not only is Mr. Huntington being misrepresented, he is being plagiarized.

Absurd. He is properly cited. 172 | Talk 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Huntington's basis thesis is that for a brief period while the Cold War was winding up the world entered a unipolar state where the US could assert its policy with a bare minimum of resistance, but this time quickly passed in favor of a "uni-multipolar" world where the US attempts to set the agenda and regional powers undermine it without taking a formal step towards coalescing against the strongest power. He implicitly and explicitly recommends reassessing US policy the better to focus on key national interests rather than attempting to universalize American values, giving nods to Brzezinski and the Bismarckian tradition. With respect to realistic advice for American foreign policy this is not only not representative of neo-conservatism but the furthest thing from it.

Few living scholars have written so much on such a diverse range of topics as Huntington. So reading a few paragraphs in one article by him will not tell you much about him. I am not calling him a neoconservative, as he is very hard to pigeonhole, but it is a correct statement that he has been described as such by some, particularly in the 1980s when he supported many aspects of Reagan's foreign policy. 172 | Talk 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Reagan has very little to do with the topic, or the meaning of "neo-conservatism" today, which is taken to mean precisely the opposite of what Huntington here writes. --TJive 22:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Now, take this paragraph from the contested passage;

To reassert its status in the post-Cold War world, the United States has attempted or been perceived as attempting more or less unilaterally to do the following: pressure other countries to adopt U.S. values and practices regarding neoliberal economic policy and "human rights"; promote U.S. corporate interests by supporting policies of "free trade" and "open markets"; shape International Monetary Fund and World Bank policies to serve those interests; pressure other countries to adopt economic policies and social policies that will benefit U.S. interests; intervene in local conflicts in which it has little direct interest on the surface; grade countries according to their adherence to U.S. standards on "free markets," "terrorism," "human rights," drugs, and weapons proliferation; enforce U.S. law extraterritorially in other societies; apply sanctions against countries that do not meet U.S. standards on these issues; prevent other countries from acquiring military capabilities that could counter U.S. conventional superiority; promote the interests of U.S. arms producers such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, abroad while attempting to prevent comparable sales by other countries; expand NATO to the borders of the former Soviet Union; force out one United Nations Secretary-General and dictate the appointment of his successor; categorize certain countries as "rogue states," excluding them from international institutions because of their strained relations with Washington; and undertake military action against Iraq and later maintain harsh economic sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein.

As well as this from Huntington:

American foreign policy is in considerable measure driven by such beliefs. In the past few years the United States has, among other things, attempted or been perceived as attempting more or less unilaterally to do the following: pressure other countries to adopt American values and practices regarding human rights and democracy; prevent other countries from acquiring military capabilities that could counter American conventional superiority; enforce American law extraterritorially in other societies; grade countries according to their adherence to American standards on human rights, drugs, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, missile proliferation, and now religious freedom; apply sanctions against countries that do not meet American standards on these issues; promote American corporate interests under the slogans of free trade and open markets; shape World Bank and International Monetary Fund policies to serve those same corporate interests; intervene in local conflicts in which it has relatively little direct interest; bludgeon other countries to adopt economic policies and social policies that will benefit American economic interests; promote American arms sales abroad while attempting to prevent comparable sales by other countries; force out one U.N. secretary-general and dictate the appointment of his successor; expand NATO initially to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic and no one else; undertake military action against Iraq and later maintain harsh economic sanctions against the regime; and categorize certain countries as "rogue states," excluding them from global institutions because they refuse to kowtow to American wishes.

Rather than deferring to Huntington as the author of what the US has "attempted or been perceived as attempting....to do", the selection merely copies his assertions with the derisory addition of quotes to the phrases "free markets", "human rights", and "terrorism" which attempts to legitimate the theft of content in its selectivity of direct attribution. This seems rather unacceptable to me, so I have attempted to compromise the wording which takes into account all views and gives explicit reference. --TJive 22:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

hah, i didn't even know Huntington had a passage that was almost identical in style. i do think that section needs to be reworked. my past edits may've simplified it too much, but i felt that whatever facts were in the current version, it just seemed to have a negative tone when i read it. J. Parker Stone 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Look, see Wikipedia:No original research. We are supposed to defer to authors like Huntington, not to Wikipedia editors. And see my response concerning the quotations to CJK. 172 | Talk 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, go through the list and you will not be able to dispute the factual accuracy of any of the content. Attacking Huntington while providing no alternative sources disputing any of the factual claims shows us nothing. 172 | Talk 22:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Tjive, the section now lost its focus. This is not the "end of the Cold War" section in the Cold War series, but in recent **U.S. history** Restoring version that keeps the U.S. at center focus.

172, that is a rather pitiful defense of a section that is nearly copied verbatim from one particular commentator. Every single event that is referenced in my version places it in context to American history. That section is called, "The end of the Cold War", so it should explain what transpired, as well as how it relates to US history, and the implications. Mine very much does so.

He is properly cited, which is what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia. Replacing a version with a solid reference with one without one is no way to improve an article. 172 | Talk 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

We are supposed to defer to authors like Huntington, not to Wikipedia editors.

Which is why I said, "[r]ather than deferring to Huntington...." implying that you did not.

Well, then I should have ignored your finger-pointing... What particular factual problems do you have with any of the content in the list? At least CJK was willing to work toward verifying the information. 172 | Talk 23:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

And see my response concerning the quotations to CJK.

Your response contains no mention of the fact that the only quotations are for derisory purposes over certain terms, rather than the substance of the paragraph, lifted almost directly from Huntington.

Encyclopedias give less room for stylistic leeway than articles published in academic journals. In encyclopedias policy slogans like "human rights" or "free trade" belong in quotations. 172 | Talk 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Attacking Huntington

I never attacked Huntington. I have great respect for him. --TJive 22:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Then what's the reason not to cite him? 172 | Talk 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how lifting an entire paragraph with minor differences without direct attribution of the text constitutes "citing". If you were to "cite" Huntington then you would either quote him or outline his argument. The only thing you are "citing" are, conveniently, terms like "human rights" and "free trade", which happens to coincide with delegitimizing their usage as "slogans" (which he does not explicitly reference to in the same particular instances). --TJive 23:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Is that what's bothering you? You think that putting something in quotations is delegitimizes it as a slogan? It does not. But frankly, if it bothers you so much I'll take them out of quotations, even though I know it's wrong. 172 | Talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's also "bothering" me that you find no problems with the plagiarization of Huntington. Do you really find the usage of his material here appropriate? --TJive 23:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

He is perhaps the world's most widely cited living political scientist. The text is attributed to him, so it is fine. 172 | Talk 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The text is not "attributed to him", here is merely listed in a footnote which implies him as a source for the substance of the content. It is most certainly not okay to copy an author's text, alter it in minor ways, and plop it here with a footnote and no explanation. --TJive 23:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I believe there was an explantion, but it could have been lost over the course of many reversions. These things are sometimes very hard to follow on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I would also like you to take a legitimate look at my material rather than the brief summary revert you engaged in. Not only does it more specifically reference instances that have been evaluated in these terms but it most certainly is not anything but a contextualizing of US policy in regards to the subsection, "The end of the Cold War". What is wrong with it? --TJive 23:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I did look through it closely, and found the previous version better. The article lost its focus on broad structural considerations in the international system and started darting from one topic after another, failing to see connections to international politics and economics. 172 | Talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

My version was posted for about five minutes before it was already reverted. That is barely enough time to verify the factual accuracy of referenced events.

The only substantial difference between the two is that my version does not briefly recount history as an instance to Huntington's synthetical analysis. Rather than "darting" (in a manner as, say, having the Cold War end, going to a Bush speech after Saddam invaded Kuwait, going back to the cold war, ending it again, and then restarting the Gulf War), the version I posted makes more sense from the events. --TJive 23:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Five minutes is sufficient time for me to compare versions. I have been doing this for a living before most Wikipedia editors were born, so that doesn't seem like a fast pace at all for me... And I would disagree. The section is on the U.S. in the post-Cold War era, and the new revision is not tracing U.S. policy along changing international political and economic structures. 172 | Talk 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

TJive, here you go. It's wrong, meaning the Wikipedia has no adopted these policy paradigms inself, rather than just reporting them. But I am willing to make this change to stop this squabbling here. 172 | Talk 23:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

stuff like human rights and free trade have definitions, they're more than just slogans even if presidents utilize them that way. J. Parker Stone 23:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

True, but we're not in Plato's world of ideal forms. We are making reference to the policies of presidents, not the definitions. 172 | Talk 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

172, I have just as much a problem with the casual reference to "free trade" and "human rights" as to "hegemony" or, say, "social justice", but Wikipedia defers to definition over scare quotes and your previously attempted explanation of attributing these terms to Huntington is fallacious as Huntington himself did not deride all of these as slogans, merely "free trade" and "open markets"; and, as I have essentially repeated a few times now, it is an instance of attributing a small amount of quotation where the substance of entire paragraph has actually been lifted. --TJive 23:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Look, I dropped this point and removed all quotations from this paragraph. I've already had all I can take about quotations for tonight. 172 | Talk 23:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

172, I'm sorry that I have to harp on the point but you have been, at best, incredibly misleading here. I have just gone through the history of this article, locating the insertion of the paragraph in question as well as its footnote. You are the one that put in the paragraph, here, on October 12, 2004, with no footnote. This is how it read:

To reassert its status in the post-Cold War world, the United States has attempted or been perceived as attempting more or less unilaterally to do the following: pressure other countries to adopt U.S. values and practices regarding neoliberal economic policy and "human rights;" promote U.S. corporate interests under the catchphrases of free trade and open markets; shape International Monetary Fund and World Bank policies to serve those interests; pressure other countries to adopt economic policies and social policies that will benefit U.S. interests; intervene in local conflicts in which it has little direct interest on the surface; grade countries according to their adherence to U.S. standards on "free markets", "terrorism," "human rights," drugs, and weapons proliferation; enforce U.S. law extraterritorially in other societies; apply sanctions against countries that do not meet U.S. standards on these issues; prevent other countries from acquiring military capabilities that could counter U.S. conventional superiority; promote the interests of U.S. arms producers such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, abroad while attempting to prevent comparable sales by other countries; expand NATO to the borders of the former Soviet Union; force out one U.N. secretary-general and dictate the appointment of his successor; categorize certain countries as "rogue states," excluding them from international institutions because they refuse to grovel before their wishes; and undertake military action against Iraq and later maintain harsh economic sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein.

In apparent deference to Huntington's actual text, you did not initially even feel the need to put quotes over "free trade" and "open markets" but you later did. Only on the 30th of October, during a series of reverts with "User:Neo-Comm", did you finally even provide a footnote that mentioned Huntington, which had remained completely intact from its original form until just today.

Now, this is the objection you still claim to my wording of the particular subsection.

The section is on the U.S. in the post-Cold War era, and the new revision is not tracing U.S. policy along changing international political and economic structures.

This article is about the "[h]istory of the United States (1988-present)", it is not about "international political and economic structures". It is also not about minute differences in the substance and rationale of foreign policy. It is supposed to be a general reading of US history. However, I rewrote the period of "[t]he end of the Cold War" allowing for Huntington's synthetical analysis to be made, but with specific historical events that are only indirectly being alluded to in passing. For instance, it mentions "hegemony" over allies but doesn't mention specific countries where the US was involved and how. Not only did my rewrite put the end Cold War events in proper chronological order but it more clearly explains the course of how foreign policy changes were set into motion. Rather than a plagiarized laundry list (which needs removed in any case) I believe this is a much better model to work off of. --TJive 00:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress for non-commerical use. Unintentional errors might have been made in the pervious version, but this has no bearing on the current version of the article. The current version, with a footnote stating that the sentence is adapted from Huntington's article is one possibility, or a direct quote is another. Either of those two options are superior to your version for general U.S. history, as international political and economic structures relly are relevant in a section specifically dealing with the role of the U.S. on the international stage. 172 | Talk 00:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The current version, with a footnote stating that the sentence is adapted from Huntington's article

No, it states that the sentence is "taken from" the article, which is inaccurate and were it so it should appear as a quotation.

It appears that you are simply going to rely on arguments implicitly constructed on my behalf rather than engage my comments directly, and simply repeat that your content (well, not your content) is superior. "[I]nternational political and economic structures relly [sic] are relevant...." Well sure; can you point out where I said they weren't?

However, as I must repeat in yet another fashion with yet more prose, this is not an article about "international political and economic structures"; it is about the "[h]istory of the United States (1988-present)". It should only mention "international political and economic structures" insofar as they are contextually important to a relay of history. I did not delete any reference to "international political and economic structures"; I amplified examples of where they are relevant to U.S. history. So what is at dispute here is whether we recount this history or whether we simply talk about Huntington's views on U.S. hegemony.

Allow me to make another point I failed to previously. The wording before your second to last edit stated the following:

During the Cold War, the purported "threat" of communism served to legitimate U.S. hegemony over Western Europe and other capitalist states.

Beyond the point of what "capitalist states" the US is exercising "hegemony" over, this is a clear instance where quotation marks are serving a derisory purpose in regard to communism and its "threat"; this, of course, does not appear in Huntington, the authority we rely on, who argues that the Cold War was a period where two great powers existed in a bipolar arrangement where one power intended for its hegemony to trump the other. There is no "Soviet hegemony" mentioned in this article; instead, we have the analysis of a Wiki editor who transfers this into a "purported "threat" of communism" where there is no relevant text in which "threat" appears. You delete this in a rather recalcitrant edit, "wrong but I'll do it anyway." So, the point on derision is rather not incidental. --TJive 01:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Now the text appears as a direct quotation. [3] The issue is now settled, unless you want to deny the reality of any of the facts mentioned in the list. BTW, I've never run across any two people so offended by quotations. "Treat" was in quotations because many were calling it that in popular discourse. 172 | Talk 01:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe a direct quotation is better in this case, though it is very long. Anyhow, extraterritorially is dead. --TJive 01:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the additions. I wish we could deal with the power concepts, not the idealistic slogans. But I've had enough with this page for today and will leave them fully intact for now... See extraterritoriality. 172 | Talk 01:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I take that back partially. I made some minor changes and restored some old content. 172 | Talk 02:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)