User:Eddylee1

General Prompt
Choose an article on Wikipedia related to the course to read and evaluate (your article should be about public opinion about some aspect of U.S. foreign policy, past or present). As you read your articles, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Response
Overall, the article can be constituted as a developing yet brave attempt at trying to sum up the evolution of the opposition movement that was against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Likewise, the article is commendable for its pluralistic presentation of factors that--with a high degree of probability--represent the contextual origins (i.e. causes) of which the opposition movement emerged from. However, it is to be mentioned that while the author and the contributors to the article are courageous in partaking such a complete and exhaustive review of the movement, the article nonetheless has some issues within its composition, ranging from relevance to structural nature of the article itself.

With concerns to relevance, the title of the article is a bit ambiguous, for which I presume that this had the unintended effect of broadening the scope of knowledge that the article was looking to cover. However, the vagueness of the title--for which the vagueness is pertinently centralized around the word "opposition"--could have been addressed with proper definition by addressing the questions of 'who,' 'what,' 'when,' and 'where' via the article's composition. Obviously, given a review of the internal and structural contents of article, the article--if logic had its way--would have focused solely on domestic (i.e. American) opposition to the Vietnam War and its influence on U.S. foreign policy both in the immediate context of the time it took place and the future ramifications it would have on the extent of how U.S. foreign policy is not only influenced by the public, but also how the public itself may have actually become the architect of U.S. foreign policy (as absurd as this may sound). Suggestively, a review structured around the social, political, and economic effects of the movement on U.S. foreign policy as well as a presentation of how scholars--whether it would be a political scientist or a historian--argue about the effects of such movement on U.S. foreign policy within the factorial constraints that were just aforementioned.

Likewise, a supplemental example is given below, for which it was taken from the timeline that the article presented: With this example--along with the likes of it in other parts of the article--it detracts from what the article intends to focus on--i.e. it makes the reader question if there is any particular topical focus that the article pursues or if the article is just an random amalgamation of facts. Although I empathize with the author's and contributors' enthusiasm for knowledge, I find it a little hard pressed of how such enthusiasm ended up causing an ironically negative outcome.
 * May 2 – British philosopher Bertrand Russell presided over the "Russell Tribunal" in Stockholm, a mock war crimes tribunal, which ruled that the U.S. and its allies had committed war crimes in Vietnam. The proceedings were criticized as being a "show trial."
 * On May 22, the fashionable À L'Innovation department store in Brussels, Belgium burnt down, killing over 300 people amid speculation that the fire was caused by Belgian Maoists against the Vietnam War.
 * On May 30 Jan Crumb and ten like-minded men attended a peace demonstration in Washington, D.C., and on June 1 Vietnam Veterans Against the War was born.

On the issues of positional neutrality and impartial representation of perspectives--generally--I find the article to be well equipped (however, I disclaim that deeper examination may prove otherwise--I was limited both by time and resources), but I am ambivalent on how neuter or how fair the article was its presentation of perspectives and facts since I am only acquainted (nor am I a certified expert on this topic--i.e. I do not have academic credentials, such as a PhD) with historiographic conventions.

However, as a position sign of its neutrality and fair representation of perspectives, the article does acknowledge bias when it does appear:

A key figure on the rock end of the antiwar spectrum was Jimi Hendrix (1942–1970). Hendrix had a huge following among the youth culture exploring itself through drugs and experiencing itself through rock music. He was not an official protestor of the war; one of Hendrix's biographers contends that Hendrix, being a former soldier, sympathized with the anticommunist view. He did, however, protest the violence that took place in the Vietnam War.

Likewise, in examining the integrity of which the article's neutrality and fair representation of perspectives, I am as equally ambivalent to the integrity of which the author and contributors enumerated and consulted their sources. However, in terms of evaluation, I err that the article generally is correspondent to citations and that at initial examination (i.e. two evenings worth) the facts are referenced by generally credible sources (but I would suggest to the author and the contributors to the article in not using journalists' surveys and opinions unless they are primary sources since the audience that journalism tends to attract is popular in nature) as need be and bias from the sources is brought up as per necessity (as the example above demonstrates). As with the concern of 'neutral' sources, I contend evaluation with some caution since complete neutrality is impossible since epistemology suggests that the nature of knowledge is propositional, therefore meaning that factual knowledge could be to some extent driven by human bias (e.g. Pew Research study and how observer-expectancy bias may affect results--therefore the integrity of the results of said study). Hence--judgmentally--I would discern that the article does not have blatantly erroneous sources whether it would be outdated or super-biased, given that most of the links that the article provides were accessible to examination.

In terms of ratings, the article--in context to the WikiProjects that it is part of (Anti-war, Cold War, Military History, Politics, Southeast Asia/Laos, United States, Vietnam)--is generally rated between a B or C class (according to Wikipedia's analytics). In terms of the 'behind the scenes' discussion on the article, my sentiments--which are delineated above--are generally in agreement of those within the talk section and the ratings.

To conclude, the article holds a lot of potential to ascertain higher levels of quality according to the standards Wikipedia has set, and I would like--as a final but brief note--disclaim my evaluation as one that is general and not made under the premises of it being evaluated as a formal evaluation, but rather informal.

Post-script: Wikipedia vs. Class discussion

The differences that exist between Wikipedia and our class discussion could be briefly summarized as a difference between how knowledge is brought up as propositions--Wikipedia attempts to bring up and present knowledge in a pure and intrinsic manner, whereas class discussion is knowledge that is brought under the premises of personal perspectives and the desire bring up prevailing/persuasive perspectives (although the results have varied on this matter).

Link to the Article
Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War

Adding to an Article (for 2/12/18)
Link: North Korea–United States relations

Source Used: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/13/in-asia-pacific-countries-many-are-concerned-about-north-koreas-nuclear-program/ft_17-07-13_northkorea_force/

Added Blurb:

However, although Americans are inclined to defensive and or pacifist positions against North Korea, the Global Attitudes Survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in the spring of 2017 suggests how a majority of Americans (64%) expects U.S. military intervention if one of its Pacific allies (particularly Japan and South Korea) were to come into military conflict with North Korea. In contrast, the survey points to how 30% of Americans are opposed to such interventionism. In both a parallel and comparative perspective, a majority of South Korean and Japanese citizens (91% and 82% respectively) also expect U.S. military intervention if their country was attacked by North Korea.

Finalization of topic and compilation of initial sources (Note: while due by 2/23/18, was not notified of topic approval until 2/26/18)
Finalized/Approved Topic: U.S. Public Opinion on NAFTA

Initial Compilation of Sources (Note: The list of links that are provided below are tentative and are subject to removal during the drafting process)

Government Studies

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33087.pdf

Polling Data (U.S. Public Opinion)

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/ccs2017-us-mexico-nafta-economy_718x416.jpg

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/ccs2017-us-mexico-fair-traders_718x498.jpg

http://news.gallup.com/poll/204269/americans-split-whether-nafta-good-bad.aspx

http://www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm (evolutionary polling data, starting from 1999)

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/09/views-of-nafta-less-positive-and-more-partisan-in-u-s-than-in-canada-and-mexico/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/13/americans-generally-positive-about-nafta-but-most-republicans-say-it-benefits-mexico-more-than-u-s/

Analyses

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3096086.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aca8af65ba6acaf94422eaa4d1639897c (International Studies, uses multidisciplinary approach)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4192979.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Af322b8768ff8c433aaac9eefd0522166

(Statistical study of on congressional support of NAFTA)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4150134.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ac15da9de925f802994727da0291ef7fe

(Comparative analysis of American and Canadian (domestic) politics and public opinion/stance on NAFTA--attempts some kind of structural definition)

Contextual Sources

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt14btd8m.5.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aff61e9dcbdc6ce3603b20e596a7a934e

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt1qft0bj.8.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A603fccd018fce9f065e004e467222b5d

Drafting of Article (For the week of 02/25/2018)
Rough Outline of Article (subject to change)

-What is NAFTA?

-How are NAFTA and U.S. public opinion connected? Give some evolutionary details.

-Trace the broad connection between the possible "love-hate" relationship that the U.S. public has had with NAFTA--are they affected by the particular successes or failures of implementing NAFTA, or are they driven by factors of ideology, political lambasting, and or significant political events that were surrounding NAFTA at any given time?

-Why do scholars want to study NAFTA? Why do they think free trade agreements are important or not?

-What is the "review of literature," the scholarly "rhythm" of which these scholars assert a certain position on the alignment of both NAFTA and U.S. public opinion on whether or not the two are coinciding or if both are awkward/opposite alignments (e.g. U.S. public hates NAFTA, but NAFTA is actually benefiting them).

-Examine and analyze how the polls and surveys were structured. Could this have affected the results of poll or survey? Any sign of demand characteristics or experimenter bias?

Lead Section (Rough Draft)

Overall, U.S. public opinion on the North American Free Trade Agreement (abbrev. NAFTA) has been mixed since its implementation in 1994. According to the most recent poll conducted together by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal--from August 5th to 9th of 2017--49% of Americans had positive views on NAFTA, whereas 40% of Americans had negative views of NAFTA given a 2.9% margin of error. In addition, a recent Gallup poll that was conducted from February 1st to 5th of 2017 enumerates that 48% of Americans thought positively of NAFTA whereas 46% of Americans thought the contrary. However, data collected by the Pew Research Center in its Spring 2017 Global Attitudes Survey showed that 51% of Americans held a positive view on NAFTA whereas 39% of Americans had a negative view on NAFTA.

Likewise, U.S. public opinion on international trade has similar variances with U.S. public opinion on NAFTA. Correlationally, in a survey recently run by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 72% of Americans thought that international trade was good for the economy, 57% of Americans thought that international trade was conducive to job creation, and that 78% of Americans thought that international trade was beneficial to the American consumer. Respectively, 26%, 41%, and 20% of Americans thought the contrary.

Given such precedent above, the Congressional Research Service has found that, overall, between all constituents of the trilateral free trade agreement, both import and export industries within all countries have seen an uptick of the amount economic goods that are being traded between the three countries. Intersectionally, U.S. public opinion on NAFTA poses several dimensions of analysis of which scholars of public opinion, political science, and economics demonstrate the wide variety of effects when actors of all types are involved in either the modification, repeal, or inaction on the terms that NAFTA delineates for the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Such will be expressed in further detail below.

Summary

Wikipedia Article: U.S. Public Opinion on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (for 04/23/2018)
Note: the finalized Wikipedia article is found in the sandbox link below--


 * Eddylee1/USPublicOpiniononNAFTA (sandbox)
 * US Public Opinion on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (webpage)