Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of the United States government

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some criticisms lacking

[edit]

Gaddafi was also supported by the US government, hence the recent internet-thing of McCain tweeting about his visit to Libya (emerged the day he died lol). With concern to democracy promotion, Chile's and Iran's (1973 and 19..53?) coup d'etats aren't gone into enough detail. They aren't just failures of democracy, they are specifically anti-democratic. Imperialism: quote ron paul talking about american acquisition of natural resources? He likens it to colonialism. The list goes on and on. This article isn't good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.202.39 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article created December 2009

[edit]

The reason for this article emerged out of discussion on the Talk:Foreign policy of the United States. There was widespread agreement that the U.S. foreign policy article was a mess, with a disjointed structure and POV problems. There was agreement to turn the "Foreign policy of the United States" into a main article, but have subarticles which delved more specifically into themes. One subarticle idea was this one: criticism of U.S. foreign policy. So I researched it. While I'm highly critical of U.S. policy in other formats, what I found surprising was how the material which had accumulated on the USFP article was almost entirely negative towards the US. I tried to incorporate as much of the existing material as I could in this subarticle. But what I found missing were the under-reported positive things the US has done during its history. So I included these as best I could. I think there's a trend in newspapers to overlook the benign, less-than-newsworthy stories but still which had important consequences.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last, in grouping criticisms, I resorted to two basic dimensions: right vs wrong (a moral dimension) and effective vs ineffective (a practical dimension). I realize this is a choice, but I couldn't think of a better structure to encompass the wide range of comments about such a complex topic as criticism of US foreign policy. There may be other dimensions perhaps, or different ways of looking at this subject that I haven't yet come across. But, at this moment, I think the moral-immoral effective-ineffective breakdown is suitable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree article is "too long"

[edit]

It is the appropriate length. It loads reasonably quickly. It is easy to navigate. Further splitting would be counter-productive since to do so would mean wrecking the articles neutrality. Right now there's an even balance between good & bad criticisms, and effective and ineffective criticisms. These issues are all tied up with one another and should not be separated.- That is, if we split this article into separate articles, each one will have a POV problem.-Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are good reasons to further split this article, please make them here, otherwise I'm removing the "article too long" tag.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky

[edit]

The article states: "Noam Chomsky, a former Reagan administration official..." -- WHAT?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although the page was able to survive the deletion discussion, it still has a staggering number of issues with WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:STYLE, and WP:V. In this case, it appears that Chomsky was paraphrasing Sanford Lakoff's rewording of Thomas Carothers's—here's your former Reagan administration official—essay in Journal of Democracy[1]. It's a bit too shady and informal to be considered a well-founded criticism so I'll just remove this passage until somebody comes up with an appropriate citation from the original source. Oh and when you see such blatant inaccuracies in the future, be bold and try to correct or remove them yourself.—Rankiri (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Impeached?

[edit]

The article states: "Ironically, a president who was arguably the most skillful in foreign policy, Richard M. Nixon, was impeached, but for offenses linked with domestic politics.[70]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.162.171 (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking a question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think He was implying it saying something. How is it ironic if his impeachment had nothing to do with his good foreign relations? Seems pointless and stupid. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon was never impeached. He resigned in the face of near-certain impeachment.Aquila89 (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted

[edit]

This article is nothing more than personal opinion, backed up by weak citations/synth. There are large sections of the article that aren't even cited. For instance "it is possible to elect presidents with scant foreign policy experience. Clearly the record of past presidents confirms this, and that presidents who have had extensive diplomatic, military, and foreign policy experience have been the exception, not the rule. In recent years, presidents had relatively more experience in such tasks as peanut farming, acting and governing governorships than in international affairs. It has been debated whether voters are sufficiently skillful to assess the foreign policy potential of presidential candidates, since foreign policy experience is only one of a long list of attributes in which voters tend to select candidates." This is opinion, not fact. This article should be deleted, and the very few legitimate sections should be merged into Foreign Policy of The United States, as a section labeled "Criticism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.221.228 (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's stupid and hilarious at the same time. It's basically just a list of complaints of the sort that could be rounded up about any country that has been a major player on the world stage. Most of it is POV and shows a lack of understanding of, well, reality. I especially love the sections on Ineffective Public Relations and Problem Areas Festering.
"One report suggests that news source Al-jazeera routinely paints the U.S. as evil throughout the Mideast. Other critics have faulted the U.S. public relations effort."
Yes, the allowance of Al-jazeera to report in a biased way by the United States is "ineffective PR". Why hasn't the U.S. made a better effort to censor them and replace the ineffective content with a more effective PR campaign? Pfff. And the second sentence is wholly without any real content at all, except to let us know that there are people who feel more could be done.
"Critics point to a list of countries or regions where continuing foreign policy problems continue to present problems."
Really? Problems present continuing problems? Countries are listed where the U.S. undoubtedly has problems (putting it in the category "countries who have problems with certain other countries" where there is a lot of company) but there is no substantial information.
Also, I love the implication that the fact the Iran "presents problems with nuclear proliferation", "Pakistan is unstable", and "China presents an economic challenge" is presented as criticism of American foreign policy. There might be problems with the approach to these issues but they aren't listed and that these problems exist at all is hardly related to the specific policies of the United States. China's economic challenges and Iran's nuclear proliferation are a problem for many other countries besides the U.S.
Anyway, most of the points raised in the article are general accusations with no real substance or are sourced by one person or one article. Some of these criticisms go back to Andrew Jackson's presidency which raises the issue of whether we are talking about criticism over time or just current foreign policy. If just current, the historical criticisms just muddle the article.
Long story short: poorly written article, lacks substance or use. 70.90.87.73 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article's relevant. It succinctly concludes a modern movement against US foreign policy and explains why that movement exist. It's not opinion, that's like saying that the article on 'capitalism' is opinion. This article is important. Yes it's funny, but I think that Wikipedia needs to house together all these arguments which do come together in a coherent movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.202.39 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't succinct. It's long and rambling.
There is also no modern or coherent movement. While I agree that there are a lot of people out there that object to or oppose U.S. foreign policy, they haven't formed a "coherent movement". Most of this is opinion. That's exactly what the quotations cited are. Leaders criticize other countries and their leaders all the time. Often what is said is more for the people back home than an actual reasoned critique of foreign policy.
Leaving out a comparison of foreign policy, you could gather quotes and criticisms and create a page like this about any country. And it also would just be opinion because when people say "x policy doesn't work" or "y policy is causing these specific problems" it doesn't make it fact. Other people might feel that x policy does work and something other than y policy is causing the problem. And that would be opinion as well.
What I'm saying is that this page may have a worthwhile purpose but it isn't currently serving it. Right now it is just a catchall for random accusations, many of which are specious and vague, as I pointed out earlier. In "Problem Areas Festering" it's stated that the U.S. has difficulty in South America which is undoubtedly true but the citation given for this (in about five different places, I deleted the ones attached to countries that weren't mentioned in the article) is to an article where Hilary Clinton expresses concern over Venezuela's arms purchases. That isn't a citation sourcing criticism of U.S. policy. It doesn't even show what problems Venezuela has with the U.S. It just shows Venezuela being criticized.
I also reiterate my point that the sections I quoted earlier are silly and belong more to a school paper than an encyclopedia. 70.90.87.73 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not opinion, that's like saying that the article on 'capitalism' is opinion."
Well, I don't know, I haven't read the article on capitalism. Maybe there is a lot of opinion in it. You make a false argument based on the premise that since it is a fact that capitalism exists then the article itself must be totally factual and without bias and therefore since this article exists and there is indeed criticism of American foreign policy then it too must be totally factual and without bias. Capitalism and criticism of American foreign policy are both facts; that doesn't make the articles written about them factual. 70.90.87.73 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of "criticism"? I don't think it can be defined objectively in this context. The definition of what is relevant criticism and what is not relevant criticism is highly subjective. The scope of this article will continuously create arguments. Sam Tomato (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of major changes

[edit]

I changed the format of the article but there are still some changes that I am not capable of making yet(I am an inexperienced Wiki user) such as poor placement of images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone please give me a name (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very weak page. It does not present criticisms about U.S. drug policy that victimizes patients with a medical need with 51% of those incarcerated for non-violent drug law offenses that has led to: , the world's largest prison population , highest rate of political corruption in federal, state, and local government , poorest healthcare performance (ranked 37 in 2000 by the UN WHO) for the highest cost (ranked 1 in 2000 by the UN WHO) 

       US = 37/1 = 37       France =  1/4  = 0.25

[0-1: Healthcare Performance Exceeds Cost 

1-2: Cost is equal to or slightly exceeds performance
2-3: Cost exceeds performance
 >3: Cost greatly exceeds performance)

Since 1983, drug abuse awareness programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) have been producing the largest population of drug abusers among Generation X. Because U.S. courtrooms and prisons are clogged, a record-breaking number of serious crimes remain unresolved in the U.S. The false propaganda produced within the War on Drugs policy continues to drive more interest from law enforcement than homicides, rape and other violent crime. Mike Hestrin, the Deputy District Attorney who is running for the DA of Riverside County claims that in response to the realignment of the CDCR ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, offenders of "serious" crimes have been released with no indication that non-violent low level and drug law offenders had been given the opportunity for an adjustment on their release. Meanwhile, homicides have increased 40% in Riverside County that Hestrin maintains is due to the "early release of violent criminals." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gicomeng (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No sign of internal criticism of the federal government

[edit]

The article doesn't mention criticism of the federal government about its internal actions. The article is not titled "criticism of US foreign policy", and should therefore comprehend topics like alleged incompetence, insularity and corruption which are common opinions in the United States. It is definitely too skewed on a foreign viewpoint, and territorial centralization of opinions exposed is something that Wikipedia tries to avoid by guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.157.84 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious - US too supportive of the Palestinians

[edit]

"On the other hand, others have accused the US of being too supportive of the Palestinians." - the two sources don't state anything like that, the first one is an article in which a US convoy was protested against by Palestinians, and the second one is a study of the usage of the US foreign aid to Palestine, which concludes that more precautions should be made to make sure that the funds go were they should and not to terrorists, and that the Palestinian government is dependent on this foreign aid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.54.33 (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information on internal criticism

[edit]

This article seems to deal almost exclusively with foreign criticism of the American government, but domestic criticism is just as important. Perhaps there should be a separate article on this topic.

I find it funny that the article discusses Bush Jr. under the section of 'Presidential Incompetency' and Barack Obama under the section of 'Overburdened Presidency'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.174.79 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This entire article likely violates WP:COATRACK. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of the United States government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal

[edit]

@DaltonCastle:, may I ask why you have removed many kilobytes worth of sourced information? It may not have been very well written, but the stock edit summary "removing info" is hardly sufficient or appropriate. Anybody can see that you have been removing information; the question is, why? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave explanations. No one responded. I am rewriting much of the article, hence the "Construction" tags. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where, precisely, are these explanations? Your edit summaries say "removing information;" your only talk page posts are agreeing with other editors, and one statement saying the entire article violated WP:COATRACK. Your first edit summary is "major overhauls coming after long unresolved issues." This is not an explanation. What issues? How does removing sourced content fix those issues? "Rewriting" implies replacing information; currently, all you have done is remove information. What's more, you clearly didn't have consensus for all of those removals, given that @Scott Illini: reverted a number of your removals. You really need to explain what you're doing in more details before you remove more material, else you're liable to get blanket reverted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the content that was removed actually was junk. Other content was not. I tried to restore the good stuff. Scott Illini (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DaltonCastle: It appears that the re-write of this article is still unfinished. Two main sections of this article are still completely empty. Jarble (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of the United States government. 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) 15:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of the United States government. 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, 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) 17:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this article

[edit]

Does anybody have any ideas on how this article can be improved? I think the focus on foreign policy is fine since that is where most of the criticism comes from. There does need more focus on domestic criticism, such as Race and crime in the United States, idk, I realise all of this is a sensitive topic. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

This page, per WP:Criticism, is a WP:POVFORK and should be merged to Federal government of the United States. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_United_States_government&oldid=1255806926"