User:Emmaleejordan/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Russia–United States relations
 * Relevancy The topics discussed are all relevant. I did not detect any information that was out of place or did not have to do with Russia and the US' relationship.
 * Neutrality The article, for the most part, appears to be fairly neutral. However, there does appear to be some evaluation of Acts and policies signed between Russia and the United States–for example, the article states that the Helsinki Final Act was regarded as somewhat negatively by the West, and states that relations improved in the final years of the USSR. This paragraph does not contain a citation.
 * Overrepresented/Underrepresented Viewpoints The article brings up multiple perspectives, and does not seem to display any lack of diversity in perspective.
 * Citations The citations are lacking in some paragraphs. The article does contain some paragraphs with no citations when there should be at one in place. However, the citations that do exist appear to be up-to-date, reliable, unbiased citations from scholarly or primary sources.
 * Reliable References The section referring to Trump's Tenure includes the summary of a 50-minute telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin, and states that it was hailed by both governments as a step towards improvement of relations between the U.S. and Russia,
 * Out of Date No sources or information appear to be out of date.
 * Talk Page On the Talk page, contributors have been mentioning the lack of pre-1917 relations, however, other users have stated that pre-1917 relations have little relevancy. Others have commented on the 1999 NATO intervention–some Russian users expressing confusion with the article stating that Russia was not opposed to NATO intervention. Another user cleared this issue up by stating NATO was created as a defensive alliance against aggression by the USSR, not to go to war with Russia.
 * WikiProjects The article is associated with the "WikiProject International Relations," (Rated B-class), and attributed to "WikiProject Russia / History / Politics and laws" (Rated B-class, Top-importance) and "WikiProject United States / Government" (Rated B-class, Top-importance). The International Relations effort is to improve the coverage of International relations on wikipedia, while the Project Russia is geared to contribute to the knowledge of Russia on Wikipedia, and the United States: Government page is aimed to improve the coverage of topics on the United States on Wikipedia.
 * Wiki vs class The article affirms the viewpoint of what we have discussed in class in that the US has viewed Russia and the Soviet Union in a negative light, viewing them more favorably than in 1978, but still unfavorably in 2016.

Holodomor in modern politics

Some countries recognize the Holodomor famine as an attack on the Ukrainian people, but do not recognize it as a genocide.

The Holodomor famine has experienced controversy in its classification as genocidal due in part to the objection of prominent Holocaust experts, Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, who took issue with the politicization of the word "genocide," a term originated by Raphael Lemkin.

Article Project:

Public Opinion on Trans-Pacific Partnership

Bibliography

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/actually-americans-free-trade?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Council&_zs=PH3Td1&_zl=jFdI3

https://ballotpedia.org/The_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal:_Public_opinion_on_TPP_and_TTIP

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000157-58ef-d502-ad5f-dbef0b4f0000

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/americans-favor-tpp-but-less-than-other-countries-do/

https://morningconsult.com/2016/04/21/trade-talk-may-play-trail-americans-dont-know-tpp/

US Public Opinion on TPP

I am considering adding a subsection titled "US Public Opinion on the TPP" as it does not exist already and would be pertinent information for this particular article because it has gained so much controversy and political dialogue. However, when I added this to the talk page, a user commented that the sources I was considering adding were "very biased" so I'll have to look for different sources in aiding with designing my subsection.

The user also criticized me for wanting to add the subsection because it had a US bent position, when the US has withdrawn from TPP and isn't even a part of it. This was a valid criticism, and I am thinking it would make more sense to include the public opinion section in the section that discusses America dropping out of the TPP, because then it would fit more relevantly within that section and not seem to be United-States-centric.

For my new draft, I want to use the following non-biased sources:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/228317/positive-attitudes-toward-foreign-trade-stay-high.aspx

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/actually-americans-free-trade?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Council&_zs=PH3Td1&_zl=jFdI3

I did not find my Chicago Council source particularly biased, as it was one of the sources Professor Stein had included on the Blackboard for helping with our Wikipedia article.

Draft

United States Public Opinion
The U.S. public has generally been perceived as not well-versed in foreign affairs, especially complicated trade deals such as the TPP, but maintain opinions nonetheless. President Donald Trump has expressed opposition to the TPP, and this aversion had contributed to his popularity in the 2016 election, as a tenet of his platform. In a recent study conducted on general foreign trade, researchers have found that a sizable majority of U.S. adults view foreign trade as conducive to U.S. growth rather than a foreign threat. Across party lines, Democrats have generally expressed support of international trade deals such as TPP, while establishment Republicans have responded more negatively to foreign trade deals. In an international context, Americans generally are among the least likely to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and a clear partisan divide exists among the U.S. public in supporting the trade deal.