Talk:American imperialism/Archive 4

Original research
I detailed over a month ago the problems manifest in this article: WP:OR, lack of WP:NPOV, and a reliance on primary sources to make sweeping claims, some of which have zero support in the sources. The other claims simply have no sources at all.


 * This gives the impression imperialism began recently, and that is not what the source claims; rather it's ancient: "also of Rome and of British foreign policy, from imperial + -ism" . No good.


 * This has no supporting sources, so it was removed ; this also lacks sources hence removed
 * This is WP:OR, and that is why the person relied on a dictionary instead of WP:RS secondary sources published by academics on this topic. Removed
 * This is more WP:OR; it is an arbitrary (and misleading one) that relies on a primary source - removed This is not allowed, see policy  "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources." T

I reiterate: WP:PSTS "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." Those claims in the article that do not meet this or other policies will "be removed"; sufficient warning was given over a month ago in the talk page here .Ebanony (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed some flagrant violations of policy: the copyViol is particularly egregious &  WP:CV; the sweeping claims based on the scarcest of sources - if any; the use of WP:weasel words to identify "left" historians. This article has multiple problems, and editors were resistant to addressing them. Pleas add sources for the claims in the article, and do not reinsert deleted text without WP:RS; those sources that used book covers had to go; those that don't cite pages need them.Ebanony (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have further removed a number of claims without sources, and have placed the citation needed marker in places where no source supports the claims made. Some editors here claim that there are "sources" elsewhere (which they say a person must look for and sift through) that support some claims. Aside from the fact that is unreasonable, and in some cases false (some claims have no support anywhere), policy is clear WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT & WP:CHALLENGE "material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate."


 * Welhaven added some WP:OR and poorly sourced material back to the article. These are serious violations, and editors should not add any 1) unsourced claims or 2) original research.Ebanony (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead section assertion re popularization
The lead section says, "The concept of an American Empire was first popularized ...". There have been some recent changes in the dating of when the concept is asserted to have been popularized. I looked at the cited supporting source, and see that it says that American desire for territorial acquisition underlayed the war with France in the 1790's and the War of 1812. In 1811,John Quincy Adams tentatively said, "The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs." it goes on to say that the thesis was repeated in 1845 by John L. Sullivan, writing about "fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allocated by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions", and goes on to say that the theme was put into practice with the 1845 annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 which forced Mexico to agree to the cession of its northern territories to the U.S.

I was starting to rewrite the affected bit and put all that detail somewhere outside the lead when I found myself unable to locate a WP article about that 1790's war with France which the cited source mentions as being driven by American desire for territorial acquisition. I'm pretty shaky in this area anyhow, so I decided to just mention my concerns here and leave it to regular editors of this article to straighten out whatever needs straightening. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Emerging Contrary Views" section moved here
I've moved the section headed "Emerging Contrary Views" here for discussion. Its content was: "Currently minor disputes exist between Mexico and the United States concerning river beds that have changed over time. No other major land dispute exists with the United States as an empire or imperialist power. The United States does not have a pre-defined policy to acquire land or expand its borders.  Most recent historical references are the acquisition of Alaska and Hawaii.  Territorial expansion policy has historically been based loosely on armed conflicts with which the U. S. became involved."

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is unsourced.
 * I'm doubtful about characterizing minor territorial disputes concerning river beds that have changed over time as a subtopic of an article on American imperialism.
 * Recent &#91;sic&#93; U.S. territorial acquisitions include (I think I've got this mostly right)
 * Alaska
 * Purchased from Russia on March 30, 1867 in the Alaska Purchase, becoming an unorganized, unincorporated territory.
 * Became an organized territory on May 17, 1884 with the enactment of the Alaska Organic Act.
 * Officially proclaimed a U.S. state on January 3, 1959
 * Hawaii
 * Annexed on July 7, 1898, by the "Newlands resolution", becoming an unorganized, unincorporated territory.
 * Became an organized territory on April 30, 1900 with the enactment of the Hawaiian Organic Act.
 * At some point, it became an incorporated (vs. unincorporated) territory.
 * Statehood on August 21, 1959, except for Palmyra Atoll, which was not included in the new U.S. state.
 * Puerto Rico
 * Ceded by Spain on December 10, 1898 in Article II of the Treaty of Paris, becoming an unorganized, unincorporated territory.
 * Became an organized unincorporated territory on April 12, 1900 via the Foraker Act.
 * Guam
 * Ceded by Spain on December 10, 1898 in Article II of the Treaty of Paris, becoming an unorganized, unincorporated territory.
 * Became an organized unincorporated territory on August 1, 1950 via the Guam Organic Act of 1950.
 * Philippines
 * Ceded by Spain on December 10, 1898 in Article III of the Treaty of Paris, becoming an unorganized, unincorporated territory.
 * Became an organized unincorporated territory on July 1, 1902 via the Philippine Organic Act (1902).
 * Recognized on July 4, 1946 in the Treaty of Manila as the Republic of the Philippines, an independent sovereign state.


 * There are also minor disputes with Canada over their border. This paragraph 'Emerging Contrary Views' is 90% wrong, 100% unsourced and none of the information is 'emerging.' It deserves deletion. Mdw0 (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson quote
I've taken the [sic.] out of the Thomas Jefferson quote in the lead sentence of the History section. It seemed to me that this was being used to indicate doubt in Wikipedia's editorial voice about the content or import of the quote rather than (as the sic article describes it) to indicate that the quotation has been transcribed exactly as found in the original source, complete with any erroneous spelling or other nonstandard presentation.

The quote was originally added (with the [sic.] present) in this December 2009 edit as a followup to a Donald Rumsfeld quote added at the same time. The Rumsfeld quote was removed in this February 2011 edit. I've removed the cite of this Max Boot opinion piece. That cite (which seems to have used the cite book citation template inappropriately) appears to have been added in order to support the now-removed Rumsfeld quote, and seems no longer needed.

The article cites (LaFeber 1993) in support of the Jefferson quote. I've fleshed out that cite a bit further, but found that source not previewable online. I found that same quote (without the [sic]) in another source which is previewable online, and which also cites (LaFeber 1993). I've added a cite of that second supporting source to the article. I've also tweaked the text of the quote, moving the word until outside of the quoted text, because that is the way that source I've added quotes it. I don't know whether the LeFeber source has that word inside or outside of the quoted text.

That source I've added presents the Jefferson quote specifically in reference to "keeping foreign powers out of the Caribbean and Latin America." The article, however, seems to imply something else -- that Jefferson meant it in anticipation of the fall of the Spanish empire. I haven't changed this in the article, but perhaps it ought to be changed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, why is China shown as gray instead of light orange in the image used in this article's main infobox?
Isn't the People's Republic of China a communist nation? Since it obviously is, then why is it shown in gray instead of light orange on the map that happens to be in the extreme top of the main Infobox?

Sorry, but apparently the File talk page guidelines don't allow for me to put this there, which is why I took this discussion to this talk page. 69.108.76.189 (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... The Image page at File:United States Soviet Union Locator.png doesn't seem to describe what the image is intended to illustrate, and its talk page is blank. Some of the comments in the file history speak of the Soviet sphere of influence, though I can't guess from info there what date or date range the image intends to illustrate. The image caption in this article says that the image shows Cold War spheres of influence of the U.S. (light green) and Soviet Union (light orange). China is not mentioned. The image is also used in the Soviet Union–United States relations article, and it appears to be used there to depict the U.S. and Soviet spheres of influence at the end of the Cold War. Some further relevant info might be found in the Sphere of influence and Sino-Soviet split articles. It appears to me that this is badly in need of clarification on the image page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because a country is communist, that doesnt mean they get along with all the other communist countries. In fact China and the USSR went to war in 1969. That's why China is marked as outside the USSR's 'sphere of influnce.' Mdw0 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The illustration shows spheres of influence during the final phase of the cold war. By this time, China was clearly no longer aligned with the U.S.S.R. I'm not even sure at all that China "clearly is" a communist country anyway, being more of a state-capitalist sort of system, but that's another discussion entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

About the section "US foreign policy debate"
It immediately begins with a discussion of annexation sourced to a report by the US congress, and is followed by completely unconnected quotes regarding American imperialism. I don't even know where to begin with fixing this section. What are we trying to describe? A debate within the US of what it should do with regards to empire building? A debate from outside the US with regards to what it is doing? Are we describing imperial efforts throughout history? At inception? During the Cold War? After the Cold War? This section is completely directionless and seems to be a dumping ground for every anon and passing editor to add their favorite quote. I've added a rewrite template, and I don't expect any immediate action. This is only a justification for that template if anyone is actually watching. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why almost no discussion of actual imperialism?
This article doesn't even mention the Philippines, the Panama Canal Zone, and plenty of other places. The pseudo-imperialism of the US of the cold war and subsequently is definitely interesting and has a place in this article, but it is secondary in importance to the actual empire that the US built in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.28.88 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article should focus on 1895-1945, the Mexican War, and perhaps a few other examples of military expansion. Post-WWII overseas military bases and military conflicts also deserve some mention, as does American cultural influence around the world, since this is sometimes referred to as cultural imperialism or soft power.  (And Manifest Destiny, various peaceful land purchases, etc.)  There's plenty of American imperialism to cover without the article being the propaganda piece it currently is.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem is that 18th and 19th century imperialism is randomly interspersed with information about Cold War imperialism. A distinction has to be made and the article must be broken up. KingHiggins (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Feverishly???!?!
Looking at this edit, the assertion elsewhere in the edited paragraph that the U.S. was feverishly seeking territories such as Hawaii and Latin America in the late 19th century caught my eye. My reaction was: "Feverishly???!?!". I see that this was added without comment or support in this December 2013 edit (one edit in this series of six).

I don't have the time to get into this now, and I don't have the background to do so without boning up a lot. I do want to flag it as possibly needing attention, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with this map?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USAsphere.svg

I've tried to include this map in the article when it was entitled "US de facto empire".

Contributor SantiLak disagreed with the apparently subjective title of the map and removed it.

I've renamed the map as "USA treaties and military facilities" and the file  as USAsphere instead of USempire.

I think this is enough to include it at least in the USA military bases subentry.

Please feel free to answer, I need consensus according to Mlpearc to include this map into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagihuin (talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * At first I thought there was nothing wrong with it, apart from being cluttered and ugly. And that it combines economic free trade areas with military ones without saying why. And that it repeats the military bases map at the beginning of the article. Mdw0 (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got a couple of concerns, one specific and one general.
 * The specific concern is a star indicating "Military facilities and CIA locations" at Manila, Philippines. What does this represent? Does this represent something growing out of the US/RP Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement?
 * The general concern is that the image essentially makes a large number of specific unsupported visual assertions about the article topic which are not visual depictions of supported or supportable assertions made textually in the article. This is more of a problem with some images than with others. I see this image and (many) others like it as being a significant problem in this regard. This has been discussed here and elsewhere but, as far as I know, it remains unaddressed.
 * Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there is nothing wrong about this map and I support its inclusion into the article. About the concerns you propose:
 * 1. I see the star in Philippines is directly shown in one of the sources linked in the map. https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/fo1029_usbases12001.gif There is a spot in Philippines and it explains it with a text besides it. It clearly says US military units continue using facilities there.
 * 2. Wtmitchell, military and economic power are many times related to each other, so it's perfectly reasonable to sum all the treaties in a single map. And by the way, that is the best way to reflect the power projection of a superpower like the US, which fits perfectly with the main topic (American Imperialism). We wouldn't talk about imperialism without military nor economic projections, would we?
 * LadyBeth (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The main opposer here is an user named Santilak, which was invited to this talk but he prefered to avoid it and now he's conducting a "seek and destroy" policy all over my contributions, which is sad. He is still invited here to explain why he disagrees to include a map showing economic and military treaties in an American Imperialism entry, which is perfectly reasonable. Nagihuin (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You must be a good friend of, seems you showed up just in time to help your friend.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I thank everybody helping me in this stupid dispute, which never had to be born. There is also an interesting case of Wikipedia Administrators giving up a neutral position and acting actively against one of the parts in a dispute, which is really meaningful. Nagihuin (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

too few information and only positive aspects,better to translate spanish version and put it here.
This page has so little information it looks as an attempt to hide bad things done by the United States and only show the good aspects wich are actually fewer than the the bad ones that the spanish article shows. Seems USA doesnt want their children to see what they do on other countries, the Spanish article is much more complete and has much more information. It seems that American imperialism extends to Wikipedia by hiding information to their own people.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialismo_estadounidense

Talks about much more than what is in the current page. And has better references. This one doesn’t talk about things after world war one, and has almost no completely talks on things like the enmienda platt, the united fruit company or or support to dictators in the forms of money weapons inteligence and in some case soilders in Latin America such as Pinochet or Rios Montts, the Bay of Pigs Invasion against cuba, the contras in nicaragua.and destabilization of not alike governments during and after the cold war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Or the school of the americas which trained and still trains Latin American armies to counter insurgency and teaches them torture tactics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation.

Or atrocities committed during the cold war such as the my lai massacre in Vietnam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

And other countless things that could be considered as imperialism. William M.hijo (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC) William M.hijoWilliam M.hijo (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Spanish article has a lot of un cited sections that looks like a lot of just personal opinion, there are things that can be added to this article but just adding a lot of pov into the article doesn't improve it, also you need to relate things to actual american imperialism, you can't just be say that all the bad things America has done have been because of imperialism, there actually has to be some relation. Also lets remember this is not a forum. - SantiLak  (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

SantiLak there are things after ww1 but they are inside other parts,and not enough mentions of meddling in latin america. besides,this are alot of references to the main things,just see them. and if you say that invading countries to change their goverments directly for their resources,using mass media such as cnn as propaganda to help in a coup or to get a positive view of an invasion,financing counter revolutionaries and oposition persons and dictators that have commited genocide is not imperialism then what is it?

you also have not said anything about the united states training counterrevolucionaries and dictators in the school of the americas ive left a link to the english wikipedia article,training other countries troops to keep dictatorships in power in exchange of favour for american companies is not imperialism?William M.hijo (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)William M.hijoWilliam M.hijo (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is seriously just you using the talk page as a place to spew your POV, constructive suggestions would be welcome, your personal POV isn't. - SantiLak  (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Spanish and have not looked at the Spanish WP article spoken of above. To the extent that this article might overlook mentioning "invading countries to change their goverments directly for their resources", "using mass media such as cnn as propaganda to help in a coup or to get a positive view of an invasion" (this item in particular strikes me as questionable -- it brings to mind a picture of master manipulators in the U.S. Government controlling CNN and other parts of the U.S. news media from behind the scenes, which I very much doubt is happening), "financing counter revolutionaries and oposition persons and dictators that have commited genocide is not imperialism", "the united states training counterrevolucionaries and dictators in the school of the americas", etc., perhaps there should be mentions, or more mentions, or more prominent mentions relating to those areas here and WP:SS links (or more links, or more prominent links) to detail articles on or fitting with those sub topics.


 * The question of whether this article gives due weight to the viewpoints expressed by some reliable sources that the U.S. has acted and still does act in an imperialistic manner probably does deserve some consideration. Perhaps the Views of American imperialism section could use some expansion and balancing. See, for example, the POV expressed beginning at the bottom of page 38 in Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've never been impressed with editors whining about an article and then suggesting other people do things to improve it. The suggestion here is that someone else do some translating and editing. That's just lazy. Nothing is stopping you from making edits yourself.Mdw0 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Clean up plan
Judging by the talk page, it appears that this article is a source of some ideological disagreements, but I think the bigger issue here is its general non-encyclopedic approach. It starts off fine with a general overview and then a chronological timeline, but it just stops after World War I. Now I know there are American apologists that contend that the U.S. hasn't been imperialist since WWI, but the lack of explication on post-WWI allegations of imperialism makes the rest of the article pretty useless. The "Views of American imperialism" and the foreign-policy section are both critical analyses of recent allegations of American imperialism. But there's no discussion of the original allegations or their merits. Not even a reference to them. The U.S. installed dozens of right-wing puppet regimes during the Cold War. This is not debatable. The C.I.A. documents are declassified. And it's fine if you want to contend that those were not imperialist actions, but they form the very basis and foundation of anti-imperialist politics in Latin America today. How on Earth is someone expected to understand where Latin American anti-imperialist and, more generally, Leftist anti-imperialist rhetoric comes from if the very foundational incidents are blatantly ignored? I am going to work on providing a factual history of Cold-War incidents that led to allegations of imperialism, not in the interest of smearing America but in the interest of facilitating an understanding of the world, which is an encyclopedia's purpose. We can let the facts speak for themselves. If anyone wants to help me with this, that would be great.

The second problem with the article is (what I believe is) a dishonest method of referencing in the views and foreign policy section. The article references Ashley Smith's 5 types of imperialism from a conference apparently just called "Socialism" in 2006. 30 minutes of Internet researcg yielded nothing. Now, Ashley Smith is a fairly prominent journalist on the left and has dozens of articles published in the International Socialist Review and Socialist Worker journals. They are all online in their entirety. I don't know why those aren't referenced instead, as this is indeed his position, but the source makes it impossible to verify. I'll also work on cleaning up that sort of thing. There's also a pretty clear left-wing bias in the Empire section, although it's not even good at being a left-wing bias, it's terribly incoherent. The only right-wing "opinion" in the section is Hanson bellowing about "shaggy student protests", which is hardly representative of right-wing defense of interventionism. There's far better arguments than that. This section is critical to the article as well. I think we need some discussions of opposition to alleged American imperialism from outside the U.S. (there's some irony in there but anyway) as well as reciprocal discussion of the approval of American presence by people outside the U.S. I'm thinking at least Chavez and Morales for the former and Maidan/Ukraine for the latter. Events and people like these are, after all, what shapes the controversial policies in the first place. I don't think its possible to have a critical discussion of modern allegations of U.S. imperialism while just quoting Chomsky and other Western academics the whole time.

This deserves to be a good article, and its pretty sad in its current state. I hope some other editors can agree and set aside the unproductive ideological battles in the interest of actually improving the factual content of the article. Alexmunger (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this article is in bad shape and deserves to be much better.  As for opinions and\or views - none really belong in the article.  I can see possibly having opinions\views in the Talk page but not in the articles. Aleding (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on American imperialism. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917073455/http://homepage.mac.com/mgemmill/Nexon_Wright_Empire.pdf to http://homepage.mac.com/mgemmill/Nexon_Wright_Empire.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/barsaid.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

American Base in Brazil
There is no american base in Brazil. The map is inaccurate, so I deleted it until a edition on it can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.96.4.93 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The previous statement appears to be correct. The lists of American bases that I have seen make no mention of any base in Brazil. If someone wants to claim the United States does have a military base in Brazil they should say where it is located and give a reference. This whole article in general appears to be extremely biased and should either be deleted or completely rewritten. Edknol (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * United States Naval Support Detachment, São Paulo. I have no idea if this place actually exists, or whether it is still occupied - I was just lazy and did a Wikipedia search.

blurred lines of objectivity
I found the article to be far from objective. However, it is such a blurred line with issues such as this to publish neutral ideas about the subject. Maybe an important aspect that can be added is sections presented as opinion-ladened for purposes of extending the knowledge of the topic. If this is done, both sides should be presented by a team of historians/political scientists/ or other qualified individuals. Otherwise, this article will never be able to discuss many different points of interest without provoking questions of objectivity. Jeremybernick (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Map Needs Updating
At this point in time, we need to update the 10 year old map in the article lede as it is quite inaccurate, and even was inaccurate for 2007. US bases and troop presence globally has changed in 10 years. If any editors have knowledge of how to edit those kind of map templates, i'd be willing to update it but as of now i'm stumped. - SantiLak  (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Little kid keeps reverting, let him have it
The arguments he has are a bit funny to me but we should leave it like he wants it to be, probably a little kid. Redman19 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American imperialism. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713200815/http://victorhanson.com/articles//hanson112702.html to http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson112702.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119145355/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/protected/rothkopf.html to http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/protected/rothkopf.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515133938/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/boot.htm to http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/boot.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409064117/http://www.infoshop.org/texts/empire.pdf to http://www.infoshop.org/texts/empire.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

World War I
This edit caught my eye. It changed "After the defeat of the Germans," to read, "After the end of the war with the Germans", saying "germany was not defeated in ww1, there was an ceasefire and armistice". I have not reverted the edit but, as I undersand it, the Treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty dealing with the fact of German defeat rather than an armistice agreement formalizing a cease fire. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverted lead addition re Louisiana Purchase and Adams–Onís Treaty
I've reverted WP:Lead addition here. The unsupported addition read as follows:

"Other expansionist steps — the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819, transferring Florida from Spain to the United States — were facilitated by obvious military superiority of the U.S."

The Louisiana Purchase article says:

"France's failure to put down the revolt in Saint-Domingue, coupled with the prospect of renewed warfare with the United Kingdom, prompted Napoleon to sell Louisiana to the United States to fund his military. The Americans originally sought to purchase only the port city of New Orleans and its adjacent coastal lands, but quickly accepted the bargain."

The Adams–Onís Treaty article says:

"Florida had become a burden to Spain, which could not afford to send settlers or garrisons. Madrid decided to cede the territory to the United States through the Adams–Onís Treaty in exchange for settling the boundary dispute along the Sabine River in Spanish Texas."

Besides lack of support, there appear to be some contradicts others problems with this addition. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

China's use of 'American hegemonism'
I know from memory that a few decades ago China used to refer to (and condemn) 'American hegemonism', and perhaps it still does. It might be useful to mention this in the section that discusses American hegemony, if anybody can find reliable sources to support it. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Characterization of Thomas Jefferson in the article
This edit caught my eye. I don't have an issue with the edit but, as often happens, it got me thinking about the surrounding content. In this case, quoting from the article:

which is supported there by two cited sources.

This, in an article on the topic of American Imperialism, seems to me to characterize Jefferson as an imperialist -- perhaps as a warmongering imperialist.

I'm not a historian and, even if I were, my thoughts about whether or not Jefferson was an imperialist would be WP:POV -- a cite of a verifiable and reliable source unambiguously supporting such a characterization would be required. The two supporting sources cited might be taken as doing that. If they are, though, WP:DUE says that other viewpoints supported by similarly solid sources should also be presented.

One source which I came across in googling abut this is Quoting from that source:

The emphasis there is mine -- intended to highlight the words requoted in the article to cast Jefferson as an imperialist. Again, I'm not a historian, but it seems to me that this other source from which I've quoted above does not characteriza Jefferson as an imperialist -- quite the contrary, rather.

The question of whether or not Jefferson can properly be characterized as an imperialist would be, I think, too small a point in regard to the topic of this article to introduce a dispute about that here -- perhaps an article about Jefferson himself might be a fit place for that. Here, though, it seems to me that this other source introduces sufficient doubt about that to make it improper to characterize Jefferson as an imperialist here.

I therefore propose that this bit be removed from the article.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC) I've tweaked the article re Jefferson here. I'm no historian; better informaed editors may want to take a second look at this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Page name change
The term "imperialism" is given it's own new definition at the start of this page. It is not imperialism in the traditional sense. Therefore I think a more appropriate name is needed. Clearly we are talking about an incidious form of cultural influence permeating from the nation of the USA.

I suggest a better name would be: American globalisation or Global influence of the USA Gd123lbp (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So, you want to change the name of the article because the text doesn't reflect it properly? That's a reason to edit the text, not to change the name to something else which the Text also doesn't adequately reflect. Mdw0 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting an alternative to the text, I am suggesting an alternative title based on that text. For example if you needed to describe an orange in an article but titled the article "apple" would you change the title to orange or edit the entire article to fit the title? Gd123lbp (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When an article strays off course somewhat, the solution isn't to double down on it and just change the article's topic and title with it. "Imperialism" and "imperialist" occur 99 times in the article, and are discussed in depth. Perhaps if you mentioned and related to apples 99 times while discussing an orange, your article should indeed be titled "apple". Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

POV lead
This edit caught my eye -- particularly the restored wording which, at a glance, appears to be editorial POV. I don't have time right not to look closely at this, but I see that this has undergone changes recently -- the furthest I have looked back is the substantially different wording back in this version as of a couple of weeks ago. The cited supporting source requires a subscription for access. I'll try to find time to look more closely at this later if nobody else has fixed it by the time I get back to it. Please discuss below as needed. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I happened to look back at this, and I notice that I began it with a bad link. I don't recall making the edit but, AFAICT, the initial link should go to this version of the article. I see that this was changed in the next edit with this edit having an edit summary saying "conforming to source." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

what is the purpose of the section on "American exceptionalism"?
There seem to be no direct links to the topic of this article, which is imperialism. Also, the notion of exceptionalism was throughout U.S. history used to justify both imperialism and opposition to imperialism. It is also a very short and incoherent section. Could this be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdn1899 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong title
I search "British Empire", I do not get redirected to "British Imperialism."

I search "American Empire", I get redirected to "American Imperialism".

This manifests an absurd bias, and should be changed.

BrianMDelaney (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The U.S. never had a formal empire, but has acted in imperialistic ways. --Roastedturkey (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you feel a change is needed, that could be discussed at Talk:American empire or the redirect could be listed at Redirects for discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the American empire and never had been. This page is an absurdity. You can't say "it acted imperialistically" and then jump to the conclusion "it WAS imperial!" Gd123lbp (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It probably does that because this page is what people are thinking of when they type American Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No mention of Operation Condor?
This article direly needs a section on the US's financing of military juntas in South America, I'm kinda baffled that it doesn't include it Gangweedersriseup (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Unlock
Ｃlearly this is a controversial subject, but is a permanent lock justified? When will the lock status be up for review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.173 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Kokbayraq flag.svg

POV issue
This article seems to make an effort to portray the topic in an as inoffensive light as possible. Instead of a criticism section there is only a "support" section, and the lead glorifies America and its interests in both the words of the "opponents" and the supporters. There is little to no material about the experiences and viewpoints of the countries that were subject to American imperialism. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The Allies of the United States section belongs on a separate page
The Allies of the United States section belongs on a separate page as it is more general and contemporary than the topic of the American imperialism page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.192.64 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality and "Against" section
The "against" section seems to ironically support the United States. It mentions the Mashall plan, how US "stabilized" South Korea and helped Vietnam with humanitarian aid. It's also redacted as an original investigation.IASturgeon42 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

External links relevant to the article that have been there for years suddenly removed due to suspected censorship for unknown motive

 * The following links in external links section which were there for years have been suddenly removed for unknown reasons. It could be due to censorship. It is unlikely that all 14 links were suddenly seen in violation of wiki rules and all removed at one go. There is good reason to believe that censorship is involved.


 * "Imperial America" by Richard Haass, 2000
 * "Empire or Not? A Quiet Debate Over U.S. Role" by Thomas E. Ricks, 2001
 * "The Answer to Terrorism? Colonialism" by Paul Johnson, 2001
 * "The Need for a New Imperialism" by Martin Wolf, 2001
 * "The Case for American Empire" by Max Boot, 2001
 * "All Roads Lead to D.C." by Emily Eakin, 2002
 * "The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States, and the Case for American Empire" by Sebastian Mallaby, 2002
 * "The New Liberal Imperialism" by Robert Cooper, 2002
 * "In Praise of American Empire" by Dinesh D'Souza, 2002
 * "Empire lite" by Michael Ignatieff, 2003
 * "American Empire, Not 'If' but 'What Kind'" by Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay, 2003
 * "America and The Tragic Limits of Imperialism" by Robert D. Kaplan, 2003
 * "An Empire in Denial: The Limits of US Imperialism" by Niall Ferguson, 2003
 * "In Defence of Empires" by Deepak Lal, 2003

User:TheTimesAreAChanging says that all of the links violate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and must be removed. I am unclear about the violation of these various links and I cannot accept such reasoning at face value. There is no explanation of how the 14 links violate the rules. I urge more debate and consensus reached before deleting these links which were there for years.

I will start with first link:


 * "Imperial America" by Richard Haass, 2000

This links to a speech by Richard Haas giving his views on a New "Imperial America" in 2000. I see this as relevant to the topic of 'American Imperialism'. I don't get why this somehow violate the rules and must be removed. Can someone explain the reasoning as to why the link violated the rules and must be removed? We will start with this first link and go through the rest of the 14 links one by one until a consensus is reached on all 14 links.

124.246.101.179 (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Read WP:EL. 14 links is excessive, WP:ONUS is on you to justify their inclusion. None of these appear to meet WP:ELYES and if they can be used as sources, they are clearly WP:ELNO. Also, skip the censorship claim, it will get you nowhere and just annoy people. Slywriter (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)