User:Scrowley1/sandbox

Article evaluation
The wikipedia article Post September 11 anti-war movement is an example of an important subject that is in inadequate quality. To begin, the article as a very short and nonoescrpitive lead. Because the lead is supposed to give the reader an general overview of the subject, a noneffective one can leave the viewer confused and unclear the article that follows. Additionally, in the "An Anti-war movement forms" subsection of the Background, there is little mention of the actual beginnings of the antiwar movement. Much of the space is taken up by differing opinions by both civil and political leaders at the time about linking the Taliban to al-Qaida. Only the last two paragraphs mention any organizations start to combat the war effort.

The quality of the citations is also lacking, both in the amount of citations, and the sources being cited. The introduction paragraph of the background, for example, doesn't have a single citation, although there multiple facts and statistics used. Moreover, when writing "Some critics, such as exiled Iranian writer Amir Taheri, view portions of the anti-war movement in Western Europe as "an alliance between the radical Left and hard-line Islamists." They cite from the Jerusalem Post, but in actuality the citation links to The Black Red Alliance, which is a nationalist political party in Albania.

When assessing the quality of the article through the talk feature, it is clear there is a contentious debate over whether portions of the article were written with a anti-muslim slant, and a animosity towards the antiwar movement as a whole. Most of the debating was done between user Jmabel and Mathknight who both self-identified as either for or opposed to the antiwar movement.

Finally, aside from any bias or lack of sourcing, the article was illogically put together, with little to tie each section to the others. It seemed more like a composition of articles about vastly different things then a continues narrative about the anti-war movement.

All of this earned the article a Start-class rating, which suggests heavy editing is required.

Sources for articles
Winslett, G. (2016), Public Opinion Distribution and Party Competition in US Trade Policy. World Econ, 39: 1128-1145. doi:10.1111/twec.12409

Kull, S. (2001). Culture wars? how americans and europeans view globalization. The Brookings Review, 19(4), 18-21.

Kono, D. (2008). Does Public Opinion Affect Trade Policy? Business and Politics, 10(2), 1-19. doi:10.2202/1469-3569.1224

Polling from http://www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm, recent national polling on international trade

Valeriano, B. and Powers, M. (2010), United States–Mexico: The Convergence of Public Policy Views in the Post‐9/11 World. Policy Studies Journal, 38: 745-775. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00382.x

Wiki Project
Opinions on trade and protectionism have fluctuated since the early 2000s. Opinions recently have decided roughly of partisan lines. While 67% of Democrats believing free trade agreements are good for the United States, only 36% of Republicans agree. When asked if free trade has helped respondents specifically, the approval numbers for Democrats drop to 54%, however approval ratings among republicans remain relatively unchanged at 34%. The 2016 election had a large impact on public opinion of free trade, and is in large part responsible for the current push back to protectionism, an ideology incorporated into Donald Trump's platform. During the republican primary, Trump voters had a much more positive view of protectionism and "economic nationalism" than Cruz or Kasich voters. However, after the election there seems to have been a push back against such sentiments, with an uptick in support for free trade agreements in both parties, with 72% of respondents saying international trade was an opportunity, not a threat. Scholars, such as Michael J. Hiscox, have argued that public opinion of international trade and protectionism is particularly malleable to political framing because of the complexity of the issue. Due to this complexity, the public is more likely to look to the elites in their own political parties to form their opinions.

However, when you assess the popularity of specific trade deals, there is a sizable degree of stability in opinion. For example, in 2005, Americans began to increase favorability towards NAFTA, at a relatively stable rate. Despite the harsh criticisms leveled against NAFTA during the 2016 election, this rate of increase continued, with Americans today showing the highest level of approval for NAFTA since it was signed.