Talk:Criticism of United States foreign policy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of United States foreign policy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Own article

I am about to create this page as its own stand-alone, unless someone presents a compelling reason not to. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. foreign policy, while under the scope of the government, has enough to be its own page. Also, more importantly, the Criticisms of the U.S. government page currently has a number of issues that I would like to address. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article POV

As the creator of this article, I completely understand the POV that is currently in place. I can explain: the bulk of this page is coming from a previous version of the Criticism of the United States government article, which had previously been a hyper-POV COATRACK. So, I pulled the content off that page. Now I am re-posting much of it here just so that its somewhere. Then I will trim it down and removed much of the bias. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that anyone stopping by and finding issue with this article not remove any sections while I have the construction tags up. However, feel free to edit the sections to remove any POV. I will be aiding in this hopefully within a few days. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of United States foreign policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of United States foreign policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/May/20070524165115zjsredna0.2997553.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112085050/http://www.fdrheritage.org/fdr%26holocaust.htm to http://www.fdrheritage.org/fdr%26holocaust.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for authoritarian regimes

TheTimesAreAChanging I saw you nominate the (currently named) Alleged western support of dictators for deletion. I also see that there is a section about it the section called "Support of dictatorships and state terrorism" at this article. Normally what happens on wikipedia is when a section starts to get too big in an article, it is usually spun off into an article. Do you think that should be the case here too? VR _talk 02:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the section in question is quite small, no. While this entire article (Criticism of United States foreign policy) is already non-neutral, essay-like, WP:SYNTH, and a dumping ground for such content by User:Ghazaalch and like-minded editors, that is hardly a basis to encourage Ghazaalch to create yet another non-neutral, essay-like, and WP:SYNTH article, especially on such a flimsy pretext. At least the content here is in a summary style, although the "examples" paragraph at the beginning is unsourced or poorly-sourced WP:SYNTH and hence should probably be removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: can you explain what you mean that this article is WP:SYNTH? Do you mean that while there are sources that criticize certain aspects of US policy, there aren't any sources (or many sources) that tie all these criticisms together into a unified topic? If so, that's pretty much an issue with any "Criticism of X", where X is a really broad topic. For example, I doubt there are many sources that cover every aspect of Criticism of BBC or Criticism of Islam. But I do think there are sources that establish "Criticism of US foreign policy" as a broad topic, like The Hell of Good Intentions: America's Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy, Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era etc. These sources cut across different facets of US policy.

Likewise, what do you mean when you say this article is not neutral? Is it that it only covers negative viewpoints of US policy, while WP:NPOV requires us to cover all viewpoints published in RS (and positive appraisals of US policy have indeed been made)? Again, that seems to be generic to "Criticism of X" articles which only consider negative aspects.VR _talk 10:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And on the specific topic of "US support of authoritarian regimes" we have sources like this article in Foreign Policy (magazine) and this one by Steven A. Cook. Both of these sources criticize US policy of supporting authoritarian regimes. But we have more generic sources too like When does America drop dictators?, Authoritarianism as a driver of U.S. foreign policy: the cases of Myanmar, Vietnam, and North Korea and U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES: CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN INTERNATIONAL CLIENTELISM, all of which give some coverage to the fact that the US has also opposed plenty of authoritarian regimes.VR _talk 11:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]