Talk:American imperialism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Theories of U.S. empire

This section deals entirely with the theoretical categories of one writer as developed in one article which is duly cited. Filling the section up with "[citation needed]" is equivalent to inserting "alleged" and "allegedly" everywhere to weaken the text with weasel words. The justifications are in the reference cited. Instead of junking up this section, the "editor" should READ the reference cited. -68.221.24.50 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, the "alleged" was inserted because the article cannot assume that the imperialism already exists, without becoming POV. The main POV problem with this article is that it implicitly assumes its existence, even though there is no evidence for that being the mainstream academic opinion.

Second off, the source you claim justifies more than half the article simply doesn't contain the info it's used to cite.

1. What source is there for James K. Polk being imperialistic? He may be, but it needs to actually be sourced.
2. Why is that section worded to outright say that there are imperialistic policies, and then it blames neo-conservatives for them? Such a claim definitely needs a source right there.
3. Who has proposed the Democrat solution? One writer claiming that "they have" is not acceptable. We need actual names, for one.
4. M-I complex solution - again, who has given this for a solution?

And so on. One paper simply isn't enough to make up such a huge bulk of the article, especially since the rest of the article is written with it considered as the main truth.

Instead of attacking me for marking the sections as poorly cited - maybe consider that, as written, the entire article is basically nothing but weasel words. I tried to only mark those sections which were especially weaselly, like "many who believe X support Y view". How is that encyclopedic?

I note that in your zeal to remove any criticism of this article, you also removed cite tags that had been there for a few months, and which I had nothing to do with.

Next time, instead of critizing other editors for asking questions, maybe try to see why they think the article is such a shambles?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who uses the term without condescension knows it is a broadening of the meaning of imperialism, since, with the possible exception of Iraq and a few other conquered countries immediately after their defeat by the US, we have installed no long-term viceroys, or equivalent. (That depends on what "long-term" means.) So, it is up to this article to present what people who use the term "American Empire" mean, and why. The question as to whether an American Empire exists or not is up to the reader, within the limits of his understanding of semantics, to determine, and this article should give him as much as possible to consider. If you want really to the debate the existence of something, go read the article on Angels. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved unreferenced paragraph to talk

The majority of the edits are editors who add know references to their own POV sentences. This paragraph is a good example of this, full of bad references, and several weasel words:

Nowadays the term "Empire" has two uncontroversial meanings . In one sense, the United States is not an empire, because it lacks a legal emperor, king, despot, or other hereditary head of state. However, some argue that the U.S. satisfies the definition of an empire, because it possesses sovereignty over territories which have not been officially incorporated . The United States consists of two political entities: states and territories. The American Samoa is the only territory whose inhabitants are not granted citizenship of the United States. Other territories have been extended citizenship, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In the past, the US has also held possession of or occupied, in whole or in part, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (as a League of Nations Mandate).

Controversy exists over whether the U.S. consistently behaves like an empire across the world, and if it would be accurate to describe it as such.

...

The word "Empire" derives from the Latin "imperium", defined in C.T. Lewis' dictionary as "command, order, injunction, direction..." The imperium in Rome had two main manifestations: that of a public office or magistracy, and that of military authority. From the second definition it becomes clear that American military imperialism, whichever its forms or disguises, is the most pure and simple form of empire.

Travb (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

RE: [1]

The word "allegedly" is a weasel word and violates Wikipedia:Avoid Weasel Words. Just to show how this word can change a sentence here are three sentences to illustrate:

1. Jesus is allegedy the son of God.
2. There allegedy was a Jewish Holocaust during World War II.
3. Allegedy 3,000 people died in the Twin towers.

Infurating isn't it?

In response to this WP:AWW violation, I removed a large portion of text, unsubstantiated text which people had added over the past couple of months, including the sentence with allegedly, thinking this would solve the problem.

There were three changes today:

1. "critique" to "concept" change. With the explanation "Need to justify its being a critique"
2. "what the league took to be" added to "subsequent post-war military occupation and brutalities committed by US forces" and
3. "Many citizens of the United States" changed to the more weasel word sentence "Many"

Number 1 is a minor change, with a dubious reason, but I can live with it.

Number 2 is as infurating as the allegedly examples above. There were immense war crimes caused by the US in the Philippines, including water boarding, consentration camps and torture, see Lodge committee

Number 3 is changing a statment which is factually correct, into a weasel sentence by making "many" alone.

I will change "critique" to "concept". I hope this clearly explains my concerns.

Travb (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Number 3 was sloppiness on my part. Sorry. Number 1 was made to improve flow. (Think about it, it should be obvious.) This whole article is a joke as it now stands. "... a term relating to ..."? That's barely literate. I'll try to put some time into this in the coming week or so, but not sure I'll find the time. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-11-15 01:25 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed this statement from the Jesus line near top of the article - '(he really isnt, because there is no god anyway)'

fallacy

"Additionally, the U.S. has often provided direct military and financial support of autocratic rulers in its former possessions who accomplish US military and mercantile objectives, including Ferdinand Marcos, Park Chung Hee, Omar Torrijos, and Manuel Noriega"

This seems somewhat odd, seeing as the US eventually had Torrijos assassinated, mainly because he put the Panama Canal back in the hands of Panama, and because he kicked out the School of the Americas from Panama. They also invaded Panama to remove Noriega. It's sort of difficult to support an autocrat while you're assassinating or overthrowing them. It's a fallacy and a contradiction to say that the US 'supported' them while invading and assassinating them.

I'll rework that later when I've got more time

Cam 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement is true, it is your logic that is fallacious. As with Saddam Hussain, the United States has assassinated and overthrown many despots they previously supported for a variety of reasons after a fall out. Usually because the former despot amassed enough power on their own to feel they could oppose or ignore the interests of their benefactor, the United States.--David Barba (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved Philippine American War information to that article

I moved about 5 paragraphs to Talk:Philippine-American_War#Moved_from_American_Empire. These paragraphs are a new addition in the past couple of months. Beyond the retained paragraph, which discussed the origins of the term American Empire, everything else has little to do with the argument about American Empire.

The independence of the Philippines several decades later has nothing to do with American Empire. I would guess that competing views kept adding more material.

I never did care for the Mark Twain quote, have tried to remove it more than once, and this appears to be what caused this large mass of irrelevant material.

Please incorporate this material into the Philippine American War or Philippine independence. I really am impressed with the scholarship of this material, it simply is irrelevent to this subject. Trav (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Plea for neutrality

I readily confess that I have altered the article according to a POV, here. The prior divisions of the article, however, not least in the section headings, are written from an incredibly POV anti-American prospective. I beg the editors of the article to take serious consideration in reverting my admittedly unproductive edit, and use it as impetus to improve the neutrality and quality of the article. Tomer^talk 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Page needs fixing bad

I just read the first paragraph and it is a complete mess. First of all, it refers to proponents of the american empire as people who are against the american empire. It is an incredibly confusing statement. I guess the original intent was to say that people who are against the american empire are propenents of using the term "empire" but not actually proponents of the emire itself. It is a complete mess.

2nd, it mentions two liberal/communist groups as being the ones that oppose the empire. Traditionally, resistance to the American Empire has come much more frequently from the right of the political spectrum. You would never know it from the way this article. Byates5637 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

SERIOUS POV

This is not an encyclopedia article, it is a stick for beating US foreign policy with. That may be good or bad, but it is not the right way of writing a wikipedia article. This article should not be a one-sided forum for complaints about US foreign policy. (As yet I see no sign of its becoming a forum for approving noises about US foreign policy.) Rather, links to articles relating to US foreign policy should be integrated at appropriate points of departure in the text, and those discussions and details should go into those articles. The proper subject is whether the US is an empire, in what senses and perhaps what the consequences would be or how it would be perceived if the US were or were not an empire.

The real encyclopedia article would actually treat the question of whether the US is legitimately described as an empire, rather than taking that position for granted. In particular, would present multiple sides of the argument well, or at least as nontrivial. The article only presents poles, each one is presented in a lopsided way to serve the general POV, and a lot of rhetorical stuff not actually germane to establishing that America is an Empire is presented as more evidence of same.

I would seriously suggest beginning with the nuanced article on empire to get a handle on the vagueness and complexity of deciding whether or not something is an empire (and in what sense). Reading that article, consider the vast array of states which have been called empires, and also why they have been called empires, and finally what effect that has had on their perception and what that implies about when, where and why people would try to press the empire label for a particular state. Some of this complexity and ambiguity should come through here. One person's confidence that the US is an empire is simply not enough to justify the presentation of the position as obvious and factual. And it has got to be admitted that declaring something an empire has huge political value (due to historical associations with colonialism, invocation of balance of power as a way of guaranteeing international safety, etc.) independent of the facts and that there are vested interests in affirming either side of the issue.

Then I would suggest moving on to more balanced presentations of the whole spectrum of viewpoints on this issue - both the different senses of empire which might apply, and the positions on whether the US qualifies, and on the root beliefs underlying these positions. For example, assuming a definition of empire as Great Satan (something which people would disagree on), the real disagreement about whether or not the US is an empire really devolves to the disagreement about whether it is really Great Satan. At this point it could make sense to link to appropriate articles concerning the relevant debates, rather than just railing on and on in this article and only linking to purportedly supportive material on the Spanish-American War.

By the way, it is not acceptable to present all the people arguing one side as scholars etc., while representing the whole other side by only selecting extreme members of one US administration.

I'd also suggest treating explicitly people's attitudes toward US empire. For example, one could easily cite Niall Ferguson as one of the people who has stated that the US is an empire. But you don't have any idea what Ferguson is even saying until you also read that he approves of the US acting as an empire and feels that it is making a mistake by not recognizing and embracing that role (Prince Andrew's complaint covers similar territory). On the other hand, Noam Chomsky has said - I'm paraphrasing - that the word empire is overloaded and impossibly vague, so it is really senseless to apply it, but he plainly does not approve of US foreign policy. It's not entirely honest to say things like this - "renowned historian Niall Ferguson says that the US is an empire" or "even leftist Noam Chomsky is not among those who agree that the US is an empire" - when a lot of the force of calling the US an empire, at least nowadays, is to bring in a derogatory connotation.

There is a whole spectrum of viewpoints on this issue which is not represented. I only see an extensive list of citations and arguments (not presented as arguments but as facts within the main stream of the article) on the side that America is a (probably evil) Empire - set against a few cherrypicked quotes from a cherrypicked list of generally loathed Neoconservatives. This misses a lot of people: ones who think it's a bit pointless to talk about what's an empire, people who don't think US is an empire but that some elements in it want it to be, people who do think it is an empire and want it to embrace that, etc. Consider dimension A as empire-or-not, and dimension B as like-it-or-not. If you must dump lots of quotes into the article, dump a more rounded variety of them.

However you want to do it, it is really not correct for this to stay as it is - POV and not even flagged as such.

83.103.77.181 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific and concise as to your objections? My impression is you mainly object to presenting the view that the United States is an empire. The article currently presents multiple and competing views on the word "empire" and its respective use in reference to the United States- making for a convoluted and difficult to read article. However the objective is to be sensitive to POV issues in presentation of material.--David Barba (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I also would suggest that in the future the anon IP attempt to be more specific and concise, as well as avoiding INTERNET SHOUTING. As it is, the only specific complaints I see are false or invalid:

• The article does present a variety of viewpoints, categorized as three schools of thought, and does not present the US being an empire as an established fact.
• The article does include quotes from respected liberals like John Ikenberry who acknowledge that empires may exist but deny that the US is one, as well as several historians who claim that "empire" is not a meaningful concept.
• Niall Ferguson is presented specifically in the context of defending US empire as benevolent, so anon's accusation of dishonesty in that regard is pretty bizarre.
• The "complaints about US foreign policy" are all presented in the context of people using them as arguments for the US being an empire.

Kalkin (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

83.103.77.181 raises very pertinent points. I have been reading several articles related to empires on wikipedia and frankly I find that many of them are below par, and full of vague descriptions of what constitutes an empire, and whether this-or-that country once had an empire. I don't even agree with the title of this article, "American Empire": to my knowledge the United States has never referred to itself as an empire either past or present, unlike (say) the British Empire which, for its duration, referred to itself as such.

Ideally this article should be split, into one about U.S. colonial possessions between the end of the Spanish-American war and 1946, and one about current U.S. hegemony and global influence. Not all this stuff about "Was the U.S. ever an Empire", "Does it behave like an empire now" etc. Let's stick to facts, not political philosophising.

A couple of observations:

1. Having overseas territorial possessions does not automatically make an empire. There are bits of France and its dependent territories stretched across the globe, but no-one talks of the French Empire in any other context than a historical one.

2. Arguably, empires as a political structures no longer exist. Certainly there are none today that bear any resemblance to most historical empires. So any musings on whether the U.S. "behaves like an empire" should be rewritten in a modern context and changed to whether the U.S. behaves like a superpower, a hegemony or whatever term is appropriate for this day and age. They certainly don't belong in an article entitled American Empire (which, as I said, I don't even think should exist).Jarby (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A few observations of my own:

• One of the OED's definitions of empire is having overseas territorial possessions. The OED is a more reliable source than you or I.
• The US has been called an empire by any number of people both opposed to and supportive of US policy. This, not your opinion that the term is outdated nor mine that it is highly applicable, is what determines its inclusion in Wikipedia.
• Both history ("was the US ever an empire") and political philosophy are within the scope of Wikipedia.
• The split you recommend was already done, some time ago - there are articles on Overseas expansion of the United States, Foreign relations of the United States, Territorial acquisitions of the United States, and various others, all linked in a handy little box which is, uh, right at the top of this very article. But there have been extensive conceptual debates about the meaning of all that history, which are covered in this article.

Kalkin (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED is indeed a reliable source, but by that strict definition that would imply that there are currently several empires still in existance: the American Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the Dutch Empire, the Australian Empire, the New Zealand Empire, the Danish Empire, and the Norwegian Empire. Even if the OED is a more authoritative source than you or I, it's also pretty hard to argue that these empires still exist. Today they are more accurately defined as countries with overseas territories and possessions. They are certainly no longer referred to empires, neither by themselves or other nations.

To be honest what bothers me about this whole American Empire article is not the content, which is interesting and useful and certainly belongs to the articles that you have mentioned above; but that the term "American Empire" is basically a neologism. At the time that the United States had any significant overseas possessions (namely, the Philippines), it did not refer to its "Empire" and neither did other nations refer to "the American Empire". They simply referred to "the United States". Contast that to France and Britain and the numerous references to their own empires, both during and since.

As for "the U.S. has been called an empire". It's also been called "the Great Satan" but that doesn't mean that it literally is or was. Jarby (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There may be a sense in which the term is a neologism, though I'm sure you could find some uses going back a century or more, to the time of the Anti-Imperialist League if not before. But that seems to me to be a secondary concern, if the content of the article belongs in Wikipedia. If the content is ok, the question is not NPOV, but whether the article could have a better title, no? There are options - "US hegemony", "US imperialism", etc - but I don't think they are superior.

It turns out Wikipedia does in fact have an article on the Great Satan.

Kalkin (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those titles are superior, as they describe more accurately the contents of this article. The British Empire article talks about the political entity that was the British Empire. This article is about contrasting views of US hegemony and imperialism, an altogether more intangible matter, and should have a title that reflects that difference. Part of the problem stems from the "Empire" article itself and related ones such as "List of largest empires", I find them to be quite bloated and hazy (by the way, how do you get these words to link directly to the articles? Thanks).Jarby (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "imperialism" is more decidedly negative than "empire", and is therefore likely to provoke more controversy about this article. Moreover, defenders of a "benevolent empire" rarely, if ever, use the term "imperialism". US "hegemony" is a related but different concept; few debate whether the US is hegemonic, and the article would not really have a scope for the debates here. I think it is an advantage that someone looking for a parallel to the British Empire article about the US would easily find this article, not a disadvantage

To link to a Wikipedia article, you put double square brackets around a word or phrase.

Kalkin (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. The contents of this article are rarely described by the word "American Empire" outside of wikipedia. I note with some dismay that Soviet Empire is similarly titled. That the USSR bore similarities to an empire is unquestionable, but it was never known as the Soviet Empire.

Oh well, I'll leave at that: as I said above, this article contains useful information, but I honestly think some of it, if not all of it should be redistributed into the more relevent existing articles about the subject; and really the title should not be about an "empire" that has never been described as such.Jarby (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jarby, Have you done a simple google search for the phrase "American Empire"? Wikipedia, as with most subjects, is the first to appear, but a lot of substantial material follows.--David Barba (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:David Barba is correct, User:83.103.77.181 please be much more concise.

Whenever a person makes an absolute statement such as this:

"Certainly there are none today that bear any resemblance to most historical empires".

...I have found these absolute statements almost always wrong. There are many scholars who believe that the US "...bear[s] resemblance to most historical empires." And there is another group of editors who disagree. Both are represented in this article.

Everyone here, your personal opinion on whether America is or is not an empire is irrelevant, and has to remain on the talk page if you don't have sourced referenced to support your ideas.

I have to laugh again and again at User:83.103.77.181 and everyone else here who claims that this article is POV, when this article covers all 3 perspectives equally and thoroughly. The only conclusion I can figure out is maybe the editors who cry "POV" never actually read far enough down in the article to see their own POV represented, backed up by scholars?

I wish editors would spend more time adding content which supports their POV, then arguing their personal opinion on this talk page. The reality is that a person's opinion is not very relevant unless they have supporting citations. Trav (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed sections

Someone earlier removed this paragraph, I list them here not because I support or defend these statements.

I list them here because although I question their relevance in the article, I don't think they should be forgotten in the edit history, and maybe should be rewritten and restored:

Additionally, the U.S. has often provided direct military and financial support of autocratic rulers in its former possessions who accomplish US military and mercantile objectives, including Ferdinand Marcos, Park Chung Hee, Omar Torrijos, and Manuel Noriega - though all former US colonies, except Cuba (which was never really a colony, merely a protectorate while it set up it's own government), currently have democratically elected governments. Despite the amount of American military bases overseas, all governments of countries with American military presence retain and, in some cases, have exercised the right to expel all US military personnel from within their borders.

Also this:

Old Right journalist John T. Flynn described the position this way:

“ The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells. ” — Flynn, John T. (1944) As We Go Marching.

The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure. Chalmers Johnson holds a version of this view; other versions are typically held by anti-interventionists, such as Buchanan, Bacevich, Raimondo, and Flynn.

The ignorant copyright violation argument I kept lost in the revision history, were it belongs.

Trav (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed those paragraphs, as well as the others you restored, after they were tagged by an editor who left a number of inline comments in the article.

Regarding the paragraph quoted above: US relations to the territories it once occupied directly are potentially within the scope of the article, but that paragraph rambles off into a series of unsourced claims about democracy, and I'm not sure how to improve it while leaving it reasonably concise.

Regarding the longer paragraphs I've just removed from the article, again: For the record, I agree with most of the authors cited. However, I think that the discussion of whether or not US empire is good for the US government or for US citizens is beyond the scope of this article. Here, we should confine our attention to the debate over whether the US is an empire; if we get into reasons why that might be good or bad, and what should be done, etc., there's no clear end to the topic.

Kalkin (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am indifferent User:DKalkin. Here are the removed sections:

This is a common extension of the critique of American empire; Buchanan and, from the opposite side of the political spectrum, prominent writer Tariq Ali, argue independently but similarly that acts of terrorism against the United States, such as the September 11, 2001 attacks, are the direct result of the U.S.'s ill-fated attempts to help others out of the nation's endless reserve of kindness and goodwill. Ali claims that "the reasons [for terrorism] are really political. They see the double standards applied by the West: a ten-year bombing campaign against Iraq, sanctions against Iraq which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, while doing nothing to restrain Ariel Sharon and the war criminals running Israel from running riot against the Palestinians. Unless the questions of Iraq and Palestine are sorted out, these kids will be attracted to violence regardless of whether Osama bin Laden is gotten dead or alive."

Ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill is almost alone, however, in extending this critique further to argue that at least some of the victims of the 9/11 attacks - the "little Eichmanns" who "formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of the US' global financial empire – the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved" - deserved their fates. A different extension is more common; many critics of US imperialism argue, like Marxist sociologist John Bellamy Foster, that the United States' sole-superpower status makes it now the most dangerous world imperialist.

Trav (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what was removed, although for the record the John Bellamy Foster quote remains in the article, it was simply moved to a different place. Kalkin (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel

It reads like weasel words the way it blaims such things on marxists and anarchists. This is the definition I'd use and I'm certainly neither of these.--Him and a dog 09:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say that no one who isn't a marxist, an anarchist, or a "New Left"-y holds that position. It just says that marxists, anarchists, and "New Left"ys do, in fact, typically hold that position - a claim which it then backs by citing a number of marxists, anarchists, and "New Left" types. Note that it also says below that a couple of schools of conservatives hold a similar position. I'm going to restore the old version. "Many" is a much worse weasel word, IMO. Kalkin (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In America though to call something Marxist or anarchist absolutely discredits the viewpoint. That's the one bit of the article which comes the slightest bit close to the truth that the American empire has always been there (it being a land based empire like Russia rather than a colonial one like the Europeans). The article though is far more bent towards modern 'evil imperialist' accusations about US foreign policy, the furthest back event being 1898...--Him and a dog 10:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that means we should pretend that Marxists don't exist or have never had any intellectual influence in the US. They certainly do exist and have had an influence - in my view much more often than not a positive one. Kalkin (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a very big one. They are a small group and really far from the only people who would see that, that's a fairly standard view of history.--Him and a dog 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:American Empire.PNG

The American "Empire"

This image, captioned as shown here, was recently added to and then removed from the article. It is difficult to tell without labels or a legend, but the image appears to highlight:

in blue:

• The 50 U.S. states plus Washington, D.C.
  The national territory of "The United States"; the original Thirteen Colonies plus former Organized incorporated territories of the United States.

• All of the island of Cuba
  Never a U.S. territory; under U.S. protection between 1898 and 1902; independent since 1902; came under U.S. protection by virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1898); U.S. holds a lease on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

• The Philippine Islands
  Formerly a U.S. territory and U.S. commmonwealth; came under U.S. sovereignty by virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1898); independent since 1946.

• The island of Puerto Rico
  A commonwealth with the U.S., a special case of an Unincorporated organized territory of the U.S.; came under U.S. sovereignty by virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1898).

• Some islands in the North Atlantic Ocean, possibly the Azores (???).

• The island of Guam
  An Unincorporated organized territory of the U.S.; came under U.S. sovereignty by virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1898).

• United States Minor Outlying Islands, except that American Samoa doesn't appear to be highlighted
  Unincorporated organized territories of the U.S.; some uninhabited; Ceeded to the U.S. on various dates — see this

in black:

• Part of Oregon Country
  At one time claimed by both the U.S. and Britain; with the boundary dispute having been settled in 1846 by the Oregon Treaty.

• Part of New Brunswick
  The Treaty of Paris (1783) did not satisfactorily determine the boundary between the British colonies of Upper- and Lower Canada (present day Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia) and Nova Scotia (present day New Brunswick) and the United States.; this led to an undeclared confrontation between the U.S. and Britain, which was resolved in by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty which established a clear and mutually agreed boundary.

Not highlighted, or possibly with highlighting not visible due to scale, are:

• Northern Mariana Islands
  A commonwealth with the U.S., a special case of an Unincorporated organized territory of the U.S.

• The Panama Canal Zone
  A 553 square mile territory inside of Panama; under use, occupation and control of the U.S. by virtue of the 1903 Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, until abrogated in 1977 by the Torrijos-Carter Treaties

It seems to me that the image needs some supporting explanatory material, and might need some revision. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

agreed, weird map.--David Barba (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. What I meant in saying it matches no description in the article is that 1) it doesn't correspond to the legal territory of the US at any given point in history and 2) it doesn't correspond to any of the present measures of US influence discussed in the article such as military bases or missions. Kalkin (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This kind of map belongs more in Overseas expansion of the United States. The trouble with this American Empire article is that it does not describe the same kind of "empire" that were the British Empire, Roman Empire or French Colonial Empire. I get the feeling that people are comparing apples and oranges by trying to paint an apple orange. Whatever the American Empire is, it is not an Empire in the traditional sense (from Antiquity to the mid-20th century). It's something rather different, so having the same kind of maps as there are on other "Empire" articles makes no sense. The map with the military bases around the world conveys a more accurate image of what this article is about. This map, on the other hand, does not.Jarby (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interactive section

I've removed the Interactive section here, perhaps temporarily.

===Interactive===
[http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/american-wars.html American Leadership and War]  Interactive timeline of US military interventions around the world from 1775

Reasons:

1. The Terms of use specify, in part, "Individuals and non-commercial users may quote, excerpt and link to content with appropriate attribution." and no explicit attribution was provided (I can't guess what "appropriate" means in this usage).
2. WP:ELNO No. 1 (?? - possibly)
3. WP:ELNO No. 8 (Flash required)
4. WP:ELNO No. 13. (This seems only tangentially related to the American empire topic. e.g., U.S. involvement in WW-I and WW-II doesn't seem closely related to the topic.)
5. There may be other arguments against its inclusion.

It's a spiffy map animation, though it seems oversimplistic. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a spiffy map indeed but I think it belongs as an external link on List of United States military history events. The only one of your arguments against inclusion there that seems to apply is WP:ELNO No. 8 - terms of use can't prevent links, a featured article still wouldn't have an animation, and it would be directly related. I don't know how strict we are with the Flash rule but it seems like the kind of thing where for an occasional unique & worthy animation WP:IAR would apply. Kalkin (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it, and I feel it illustrates some of the issues very nicely. It belongs here Chendy (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why? Kalkin (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Max Boot as too partisan to be simply taken a face value.

I feel Max Boot is too compromised by involvement in present ideological struggles that have upheld the War in Iraq to be presented as merely an authority or an "historian." His credibility must be in question by other readers besides myself. Ideally this is acknowledged not hidden or you do a diservice to the general reader. His treatment can not be sloppy but must contain some awareness of his role as an ideologue. (no personal offense meant)

Readers who have no familiarity with his politics will be willing to take his broad generalizations and opinions as factual even without facts. This undermines the purpose and standards of an encyclopedia. Just because Boot has made it into the highest echalons of American power does not mean his views can stand without facts.

If you consider yourself well-read in Max Boot's books/articles, please carefully support his views with the facts he uses to support his views. If you feel you must simply state his opinions, be sure they are clearly written as opinions or they may appear to carry weight and credibility with Wikipedia.

My changes to the Max Boot section were all edited out. They may not have been perfect, but I know the facts of Philippine history are being distorted. Historical "views" are required to actually BE historical.

Jagak (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Max Boot is a partisan but so are most of the sources quoted in this article. While I find Boot's views abhorrent, an encyclopedia article on the American Empire needs to point out that it has defenders. Certainly, his views should be presented as opinions. But the answer is not to include a line-by-line rebuttal of each of his claims - that disrupts the flow of the article and, unless we cite sources that address Boot specifically, it illegitimate synthesis. Rather, we need to make sure the presentation of his views is neutrally worded and does not endorse them. Getting rid of "points out" was a good start. Kalkin (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I say Max Boot's comments are reasonable, even if they're partisan. ----DanTD (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

The POV issue has still not been addressed in this article. Specifically, the article continues to take it for granted that the US is an empire.

I don't agree. The article says quite clearly in the first section that "Debate exists over whether the U.S. is an empire", and then proceeds to outline three schools of thought, only one of which asserts that the U.S. is currently an empire. Perhaps the intro could be improved - I've reverted to the old version which makes it clearer that the use of "American Empire" to refer to the US role in the world is not consensus. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is framing (in the sense George Lakoff uses). Its effect is to turn what should be a matter of open and rational discussion into a buried prejudice or tacit assumption which is not open to examination. It is great for propaganda and within bounds for debate, but it is unacceptable for an encyclopedia.

Insofar as any other viewpoint is presented, it is either neutered and misrepresented as basically agreeing that the US is an empire (eg Joseph Nye)or it is presented by someone marginal with almost no credibility(eg Boot, Rumsfeld). When just a smattering of these are offset by a huge quantity of quotes backing POV, the effect on someone without great ability to sift through such manipulation would be an overwhelming impression of overwhelming consensus from qualified scholars. But that's really not an accurate viewpoint - anyone who read Empire could see that it is less than clear whether the USSR is an empire (and that without a lot of barely relevant invective against the USSR for being racist or dominating etc.) and could also look at the definitions there to see that there is a huge middle ground where people could sensibly say that the US was not an empire on one or another not-crazy idea of empire.

Would it really be acceptable for the entry on Jesus to state that Jesus is the Son of God when (for better or worse) there is substantial sectarian disagreement on the issue? Rather than making a tacit assumption or using weasel words, it would be best to very clearly bring out the uncertainty and difference of opinion. For an example, consider how the Soviet Union is treated in the Empire article: [blockquote]The former Soviet Union had many of the criteria of an empire, but nevertheless did not claim to be one, nor was it ruled by a traditional hereditary "emperor" (see Soviet Empire). Nevertheless, historians still occasionally classify it as an empire, if only because of its similarities to empires of the past and its sway over a large multi-ethnic bloc of Eurasia.[/blockquote]

For a counter-example, consider how the empire article (in a portion copied over from the old version of this article) states that calling the US an empire has "invited controversy" - carefully avoiding any indication of reasonable uncertainty parallel to "had many of the criteria ... but ... nor", "still occasionally ... if only". To repeat myself explicitly, the issue is whether it is clearly communicated to readers that reasonable and informed people (not just people to discount, like crazy ideologues or liars) might, without being delusional or ignorant or misinformed, disagree or raise question about whether the US is an empire. Because, you know, they do. Like the issue with the Soviet Union, this is not something subject to anything approaching scholarly consensus.

For another counter-example in the empire article, consider how the same old source sets a citation of Stuart Creighton Miller against a citation of the extremely unpopular Donald Rumsfeld making a singularly unconvincing presentation of one side of that issue.

Or how it (again the empire article) launches into a whole paragraph about how someone says the US tries to dominate other countries, without ever (honestly) setting it out that empire is defined by trying to dominate other countries (a really clearly untenable definition when brought out into the open, IMO - but if it is used, then brought into the open it must be).

Given the number of points at which the text of this article is infected with POV, it would be impossible to provide specific criticism on every instance of the problem concisely. So I am going to apologize that the below is not concise - you either get concise or you get specific, but you can't have both. I believe it should be enough to point out that the article is basically ruined as it is, but I am happy to walk through insofar as I have time to sit on Wikipedia.

-- "American Empire refers to the political, economic, military and cultural influence of the United States." Does it really refer to that? That depends on whether it is valid in general to say that X Empire is the political, economic, military and cultural influence of X. If the same schema doesn't work to talk about the Canadian Empire, or the Kazakh Empire, then this is not an accurate definition of what American Empire means.

The sentence you quote is, I believe, a paraphrase of the OED definitions in the first section. I don't think it does too badly, but if you have a better version, you're welcome to substitute it. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What American Empire means, in fact, is that empire which is American/owned by America (a simple possessive adjective is not that tortured). Now here is a question we have to take seriously: IS there such an empire?

I mean, surely no one will allow me to make an article on the King of France which states at the outset that "'King of France' refers to the male hereditary ruler of France" and which then goes on to discuss my biographical details without ever making it very explicit that, in fact, there might be some slippage in describing me as the King of France. (And while perhaps I might present some impressive arguments for why my claim should not be dismissed out of hand, surely no one would be impressed if I included some stuff about how I try to dominate everyone in France at every opportunity I get. Indeed, they would immediately notice the distinction between 'trying to dominate' or even 'occasionally dominating' and 'being the King of'. That is the kind of distinction which is so painfully relevant and yet absent here).

I fail to see your point here. A term may refer to something which does not exist. It appears that you do not agree that the U.S. is accurately described as an empire. Cool. But those who do use the term have a different view, and this article is about the term as it is used, correct? Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- The section on "American Exceptionalism" is interesting enough as it is, but I fear that it is presented as a rhetorical argument for why the US actually is an empire. That would be exactly correct, except it never actually rises to the point of presenting such an argument. Rather, it presents someone who tries to explain why Americans would not agree that they have an empire. This is clever because it smuggles in the assumption that there is an American Empire without having to present support for that thesis (otherwise, what is there to explain - nobody needs to overdetermine why Americans don't believe that the US is an empire, if the reason in fact is that it isn't one or that there is no good reason to believe it is one).

Even a little contextualization (or movement to provide different context) would help offset the impression that we are now putting a nail in the coffin of those fools in the previous paragraph who said that it didn't make sense to call the US an empire.

The concept of American exceptionalism is used to explain the degree of controversy about the idea of an American empire. Its use to frame the article was originally, I believe, modeled on Stuart Creighton Miller's discussion of same. Stuart Creighton Miller is quoted in the article critiquing the idea of imperialism. No assumptions regarding the existence of an American empire are smuggled in here. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Likewise, it is impressively manipulative to present three bullet points as the possible options regarding American Imperialism, when the only one which does not involve acceptance that the US is imperialist is the one which "denies" and "even asserts" (even - how could they! asserts - how questionable!) that "such things" (whatever things actually and uncontentiously define imperialism, a topic avoided assiduously in this article) could ever happen. This last, of course, is ridiculously strong. By bundling the only way of disagreeing that the US is an empire with a laughably extreme position on why, the laughably extreme stuff becomes a reason to take it for granted that the US is an empire. (Of course, we might always beg off by saying "but that's what Miller says." But then the question arises of why Miller is relevant at this particular point.

Ingenious - but not correct for an encyclopedia.

Actually, two of the bullet points assert that the US is not imperialist. One, which quotes a number of people who are by no means extremists, holds that the US possessed an empire for a brief period in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Another, which is indeed scanty but is already labeled with a "please expand this section" tag, holds that the US has never been an empire. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- "Marxists, anarchists, and the members of the New Left tend to view US imperialism as both deep-rooted and amoral." In the same way, I tend to view the King of France as both beautiful and a genius. But let's not put the cart before the horse: is there a King of France, and is there US imperialism? As much as you do not believe that it is even credible to question whether there is US imperialism, this is again hardly a matter of overwhelming scholarly consensus. Might we not intimate that these people view US foreign policy as imperialist, and not just that they view its imperialism (taken for granted, framed in before any discussion) as deep-rooted and amoral?

You may prefer to present US imperialism as a given, and to indicate indirectly that the only debatable items are how superficial and laudable that imperialism is. But, again, King of France. To casually discuss the incidental properties of US imperialism is to already have taken US imperialism for granted as existent. I have no doubt that it is possible to talk about people who believe that P and Q, and also people who believe that P and R, without the article treating P as something that all readers should take for granted.

Similar problem continues throughout the section.

I don't think the current phrasing implies that US imperialism exists. I may view the King of France as an asshole, whether or not he exists. But you're welcome to try to find better wording. Be bold. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- "Historian Sidney Lens argues that "the United States, from the time it gained its own independence, has used every available means—political, economic, and military—to dominate other nations."[11]"

Well, I'm sure he does; insofar as this includes a scholarly citation to a book, it is very scholarly. But that is not the point. If Paddy Roy Bates used every opportunity to dominate nations other than Sealand, what relevance would that have on the existence of Sealand Empire? In other words, if I make an article on Sealand Empire, and then I give a scholar stating that Sealand is not very nice, what has that really added to anyone's understanding of Sealand Empire (or, for that matter, the preliminary question of whether there IS a Sealand Empire) without some kind of connecting argument that being not-nice makes something an empire? And isn't this kind of connecting argument just what I am asking to have brought out in the article?

Lens' book is entitled The Forging of the American Empire. This quote demonstrates what he means by "American Empire", or at least one of the things he means. You are welcome to think that his position is illogical; this section of the article, however, describes his position and that of his co-thinkers, not yours. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- "U.S. military bases abroad as a form of empire"

"Form of empire" is just a weaselly way of saying it's an empire. If you didn't mean to say it was an empire because it had military bases, you would say whatever else (military bases as evidence of military power, for example). So plainly you do mean it. But you are going to try to weasel out by saying "form of," a bit as though you wanted to present masturbation as a "form of adultery." (Do you think it would be OK to go to the masturbation article and add a section on how it is a form of adultery? How about together with a total rewrite meant to pervasively present masturbation as Sin? Is that correct for an encyclopedia, or is it POV? What if I do not say it myself, but I only dump in a lot of quotes from preachers stating my opinion, and then give as perfunctory opposition some quotes on the subject from Anton LaVey?)

Who's "you"? The subsection on military bases describes how some people who think the US possesses an empire interpret that word - they think its network of military bases constitutes an empire. Again, your disagreement is welcome but irrelevant. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- "Theories of US Empire" Why not "Theories of the Sin of Masturbation"? "Though writers of diverse politics share a conception of the US as an empire, and describe many of the same policies and institutions as evidence of empire, even within the ranks of anti-imperialists explanations for US imperialism vary widely." This is fine and lucid and it makes it perfectly clear that this belongs in a section which is more or less explicitly marked as being for the

However, that is presently just about the whole article. Not because of overwhelming scholarly consensus. Because someone dumped in bucketloads of quotes backing their own POV (from miscellaneous left-wing intellectuals most people won't know, described only by respectable and confidence-inspiring titles like 'historian' and 'journalist', and the opposition left to a couple inarticulate and unexplained snips from people like Rumsfeld).

The left intellectuals included in the article are the best known proponents of their views available, and some (eg Chomsky) are very well known, period. No attempt is made to hide their ideologies; rather, the introductory paragraphs frame them - to use a word you like - as either "Marxists, anarchists, and the members of the New Left" or "conservative" "'isolationists'". Ideological commitment is not mutually exclusive with being a historian or a journalist. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- "US empire never existed" Harking back to an earlier issue, do you mean that they EVEN ASSERT it could never happen in their country? Look, same problem: there are any number of reasons to doubt or dispute that the US is an empire, defended by respectable scholars who are not hated doofs like Rumsfeld (e.g. Joseph Nye). I've already discussed the problem with using Rumsfeld as the representative of the only alternative view - you are presenting nutty patriotic revisionism as being the only possible path to challenge a leftist orthodoxy, and that just isn't fair or intellectually honest.

Nye doesn't claim that a US empire never existed. He's quoted in the section on people who believe that the US was once an empire but no longer is. There may or may not be respectable scholars who believe the US was never an empire; I once Googled briefly and didn't find any. But if you know of some, please do add reference to their work in the appropriate place. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Max Boot I think this has been thrashed out somewhat. I see one problem that it is a bit odd and discontinuous to jump into the Philippines, now that the rest of the article is not as much of an extended rant on how bad America was in the Philippines (whatever precisely that contributes to a discussion of American Empire is still not spelled out, but it sure sounds nasty and plays to the same far-left bias suffusing the whole article). I see another problem that you are again using someone who will regarded as marginal as one of the sole proponents of the alternative to your own obviously favored view. Using those people as the sample is extremely misleading and if that is all you can allow to be in the article, then I would at least like less of that redundant stuff toward the beginning where a bunch of leftist scholars are all nodding at each other that it is an empire.

Again, who's "you"? This article has many authors.

The section on the Philippines could use reworking, I agree; it's the main area of disagreement between Boot and folks like Nye (or even Victor Davis Hanson), who are more critical of the turn-of-the-century US occupation of the Philippines, but this isn't made clear in the article. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- "Empire was an aberration" By manipulating context and phrasing, you misrepresent Joseph Nye as if he accepted that the US was an empire, and as if soft power is just a form of empire, when, in fact, he argues pointedly and explicitly that the US is not an empire.

You're multiply wrong. There's nothing unfair about the presentation of Nye's views, and he is not presented as agreeing that the US is currently an empire, precisely the opposite. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You label what Nye says as the "official or mainstream interpretation" and this reads to me very much like you want it to be discounted as some bullshit official line. That impression is not at all helped when you back it up with a quote from the United States Information Agency. So propaganda agencies and rabid/wildly delusory nationalists are the only people who disagree with you? I doubt you even believe that.

It's probably not healthy to speculate about what your imaginary interlocutor is merely pretending to believe.

I do agree that "official or mainstream interpretation" is the sort of unverifiable assertion that doesn't belong in the article. I thought it had already been removed at some point, but I suppose either I misremember of it was restored. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

By locating the only real counterarguments to "American Empire" in a section labeled "Empire was an aberration" you suggest that really no sensible person could ever question American Empire, it's just that some people will say wishy-washy stuff about how it wasn't *so much* of an empire or something. Which is transparently ludicrous.

Even if Miller believes those are the only three categories, that does not mean that Wikipedia also has to frame the entire topic to readers in Miller's skewed way, with the only nonacceptances of "American Empire" being from (IMHO) loons like Rumsfeld and Boot.

-- "A variety of factors may have coincided during the "Age of Imperialism" (the later part of the nineteenth century, when the US and the other major powers rapidly expanded their territorial possessions) to spur on American expansion abroad:"

This belongs in an article on US expansion, manifest destiny or something like that. What you have done here is take another highly suggestive item which is technically out of context and dump it in to overwhelm the reader with one POV.

If the US once had an empire and no longer does, it's worth examining what was special about that period. Same as with the "theories of empire" section above. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Cultural imperialism You repeat the tactic of having a "scholar" sound-bited as agreeing with POV. He states that 'cultural imperialism' and 'political imperialism' are the same and throws in some more of that stuff about exceptionalism (again taking it for granted that exceptionalism is true, and that it is the reason people do not believe that the US is an empire).

But the argument presented is entirely oriented around "scholar says so." Nothing else is even suggested: rather than presenting any evidence at all to bind together cultural imperialism (whatever cultural imperialism, that discussion is conveniently packed away - where nobody can inspect the basic feasibility of the equivalence) you just have Ed Said saying they are the same somehow and that exceptionalism explains why people say otherwise. Well, maybe, but how does anyone actually know that they are the same?

You think the article gives undue weight to anti-imperialist views, but you want to add evidence for Said's position?

Two scholars are also quoted critiquing the idea of cultural imperialism. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-- "He believes non-US citizens, particularly non-Westerners, are usually thought of within the US in a tacitly racist manner, in a way that allows imperialism to be justified through such ideas as the White Man's Burden.[40]"

Suppose I find someone who says that Swedes, Veterinarians, or any other group are racist. Racism, of course, "allows imperialism to be justified through such ideas as the White Man's Burden." This is a ridiculously shaky argument. Surely Edward Said does not determine whether or not the US is racist, and surely being racist does not mean being an empire. Perhaps I am egregiously racist, but that does not make me an empire; even if I move my racist family out to Sealand, that does not make us an empire; even if I become the racist ruler of Australia, that does not make an Australian Empire. So where is the meat here?

You disagree with Said. Once again your privilege; once again beside the point. Kalkin (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In summary I see little change in the essential POV problem here - only angry denials that there is a problem and the removal of the POV marker. But that change is necessary because this really does represent significant POV of the type that does not help WP's reputation or mission at all (even if it does advance the agenda of an individual or small group camping the page)

83.103.77.181 (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the original sources mentioned in this section, but the IP is correct in his explanation that the article takes US imperialism as a given. Yes, you have sources from historian's that claim the US is or was an empire - but these sources are not used to explain why they think that! They are instead used to discuss semi-relevant aspects of U.S foreign policy under the prior assumption that the US is an empire. In fact, the closest thing to any kind of definition used by or with sources is by Mark Twain! The "U.S. military bases abroad as a form of empire" has only two sources that actually has claims along these lines, and they are used for two lines that essentially report that they said so. The rest of the section is cobbled together OR - the only sources not at all claiming anything about US empire, and simply used for numbers.

I also have to comment that the IP is correct in his claim that lack of an actual definition of empire and how the U.S. qualifies pervades the article - it really does read as a lot of semi-relevant ad hominem attacks amounting to "the U.S. has crappy foreign policy, thus it is an empire". The "U.S. is not an empire" interpretation is not only given no academic or professional sourcing, but is written specifically to say that this is a non-academic view mainly held by polemics. As much as DKalkin tries to foist the problem off on others with his comments above, the fact remains that it is a problem with the article, and does need to be dealt with. You can't (or at least, shouldn't) wave off an allegation of PoV simply by saying "then you deal with it!".

I've put up a few "fact" notices for sections that specifically need it - this article is much too important to get away with so much OR.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, this is not NPOV at all. The article cites a bazillion reasons why imperialism and democracy are mutually exclusive--does not JUSTIFY or cite viewpoints of patriotic 'imperialists' (enough). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.136.149.52 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Expand: History of American Expansion

This really needs to be expanded. It does not cover all American territorial expansion and leaves out the joining of Vermont, the Louisiana Purchase, Florida, the Gadsen Purchase, Alaska, the Virgin Islands, and the Pacific Territories (did I miss any?) Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Oregon Territory/Country. Also the post-treaty assertions of disputed lands - the San Juans, the Alaska Panhandle, northern Maine were imperial acquisitions acquired by threat of force.Skookum1 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the territory which was to become Vermont occurred prior to the birth of America, so this appears not to be an American expansion. I've roughed in info on Florida, the Louisiana Purchase, Oregon Country, the Mexican Cession, the Gadsen Purchase, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the TTPI, and American Samoa. Please consider these changes/additions a rough draft and apply whatever further editing might be needed. Also, there may be additional items which should be added. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Vermont was an independent country and joined after the country was founded and the constitution was adopted, thus it is an expansion.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Vermont article:

During the French and Indian War, some Vermont settlers, including Ethan Allen, joined the colonial militia assisting the British in attacks on the French. Fort Carillon on the New York-Vermont border, a French fort constructed in 1755, was the site of two British offensives under Lord Amherst's command: the unsuccessful British attack in 1758 and the retaking of the following year with no major resistance (most of the garrison had been removed to defend Quebec, Montreal, and the western forts). The British renamed the fort Fort Ticonderoga (which became the site of two later battles during the American Revolutionary War). Following France's loss in the French and Indian War, the 1763 Treaty of Paris gave control of the land to the British.

The end of the war brought new settlers to Vermont. A fort at Crown Point had been built, and the Crown Point Military Road stretched from the east to the west of the Vermont wilderness from Springfield to Chimney Point, making travel from the neighboring British colonies easier.

Three colonies, Massachusetts, New York, and New Hampshire, laid claim to what is now Vermont. All had royal charters, issued under different kings, to prove these conflicting claims. In 1741, George II ruled that Massachusetts's claims in Vermont and New Hampshire were invalid and fixed Massachusetts's northern boundary at its present location. This still left New Hampshire and New York with conflicting claims to the land.

The situation resulted in the New Hampshire Grants, a series of 135 land grants made between 1749 and 1764.

On 1764-07-20, King George III established the boundary between New Hampshire and New York along the west bank of the Connecticut River, north of Massachusetts, and south of the parallel of 45 Degrees north latitude. Under this decree, Albany County, New York, as it then existed, implicitly gained the land presently known as Vermont. Although disputes occasionally broke out later, this line became the boundary between New Hampshire and Vermont, and has remained unchanged to the present. When New York refused to recognize land titles through the New Hampshire Grants (towns created earlier by New Hampshire in present Vermont), dissatisfied colonists organized in opposition, which led to the creation of independent Vermont on 1777-01-18.

As I read that, George III added the territory in 1764, before the birth of America, and Vermont was created as an independent entity in 1777 from territory which was already at that time part of America (not by territorial expansion). I'm no expert, but it seems to me that if the foregoing is in error, corrections should be made in the Vermont article and corrected info from that article incorporated here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

While Vermont might have been a part of British North America territory as the article said, it was never a part of the United States since it sought its own independence and got it. The article also mentions Vermont "exchanged ambassadors with France, the Netherlands, and the American government then at Philadelphia." This seems to me that they were not a part of the US but were recognized by them as an independent nation. Vermont joining later should be considered an expansion of territory.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I read the Vermont article, Vermont was a part of New York at the time of the birth of the U.S. and, shortly after that time, at a time subsequent to the birth of the U.S., dissatisfied colonists organized an opposition which led to the creation of a nascent independent Vermont on January 18, 1777 (a date subsequent to the birth of the U.S.). The nascent republican government in Vermont faced challenges from New York, New Hampshire, Great Britain and the new United States, none of which recognized its sovereignty. I'm not a U.S. history buff, and I'm just gleaning this from the WP article on Vermont. From what I read there, though, Vermont was a part of New York at the time of the birth of the U.S., and was a part of the U.S. at birth, rather than having been acquired by the U.S. at some point after the birth of the U.S. If I've got that wrong, it looks to me as if the Vermont article needs correction. In any case, this article ought not to contradict information in the Vermont article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

On a topic other than Vermont, in putting the info I've added to this section together I noted that by far the majority of the expansions described resulted in the acquisition of territory which later evolved politically into U.S. States, with each state thus becoming an integral part of the U.S. itself and not an imperial possession of the U.S. Thus, the majority of the expansions described may not be properly categorized as part of an "American Empire". I pointed that out in an introduction which I added to this section, but perhaps the info about territorial expansion belongs elsewhere than in this article specifically titled "American Empire". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree based on how I read the article and the Territorial evolution of the United States article also suggests it was an expansion. As for the territories being part of an empire depends on your definition of "empire." Do all of the territories need to be oversees or could they be an integral part of the nation. I would say either is ok or else than Russia never had an empire. Still I would get rid of the section entirely IMO, there are other articles that do this topic better justice without having to go over it here. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong article for specific examples, see the other articles in the Template:AmericanEmpire Inclusionist (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: about the Russian Empire, the important definition context there is it styled itself as such, and the imperial ruler's title Tsar is literally "Caesar". This is why the Bulgarian Empire, the Empire of Trenbizond, the Central African Empire are/were still "empires"; by definition. No matter how small, or how acquired....Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actual Empire

The fundamental question about Imperialism in the United States isn't directly answer in the article, did the United States maintain an actual empire, (i.e. in the same sense that the British did or the Spanish? The answer is no, and I was wondering if it was smart to include the 'American Empire' in the Colonialism article and the colonisation part of the Western World article? Taifarious1 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your never going to get a definitive answer, because the definition of empire is not absolute, and most Americans have a mental block even entertaining the idea. Inclusionist (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC

�While I agree with that, in terms of tangible imperial possessions there's a list - Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Virgin Islands - and at one point the Philippines; Hawaii can also be looked upon as an imperial(ist) acquisition; and in terms of continental empire the whole nature of UX expansion in North America is by definition imperial in teh way the Russian Empire also didn't involve overseas territories, only the consolidation of neighbouring ones. This is without counting the many proxy states - Cuba at one time, Nicaragua and other Central and South American countries are others....and for us Canadians, we're under no illusions about whose Empire we're in now (considering that we were British Empire to start with....).Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

By strict definition an Empire has an emperor, usually by that title...the US isn't at that point quite yet... ;-) Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is touched upon in the archives, Talk:American imperialism/Archive 2#Very_bad_wording you may be interested in conversation. Inclusionist (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Shaky comparison

I added a fact template to the following:

A worldwide fascination with the United States has not been forced on anyone in ways similar to what is traditionally described as an empire, differentiating it from the actions of the British Empire--see the Opium Wars--and other more easily identified empires throughout history.

That's extremely debatable, especially when non-military force is considered, i.e. economic/financial/political. Do people want McDonald's, or are they sold on wanting McDonald's; advertising - as organized "designer brainwashing" - is a form of force, so are the political machinations associated with corporate market-breaking e.g. the dominance of Wal-Mart now in Canada. The Opium War is also a particularly bad comparison as the British were not trying to force/inculcate their way of life among hte Chinese; the Chinese had made the choice to use/sell/trade-in opium themselves and the British action was only to preserve that trade monopoly; not turn Canton into another Sussex or Hartfordshire. yes, people aren't marched into McDonald's or Old Navy stores at gunpoint or forced to wear blue jeans or bikinis; but they are brainwashed into it; a big part of the modern American Empire is "cultural exports" - film, entertainment, writing/ideas - particularly ideas like deregulation and open markets (open markets except in the US....), and taht particular form of carnival-style Xianity that was invented in the US, though it's spread considerably in Latin America and Africa etc because of active "religious imperialism" by American missionaries and churches. In the same way the priests and pastors in Africa and elsewhere were seen as agents of colonialization by the British, Belgians, French etc, the same is very true of American political and religious evangelization; non-official aspects of Empire. Also wanted to mention, and not meaning to wave the maple leaf, that the largest US "colony" is easily Canada, both culturally and economically; it wasn't forced on us; we were sold to it....(and take an active part in it, admittedly).Skookum1 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the fact tag, it was added by DKalkin on 25 February 2006, as a quote from Rothkop. DKalkin is an incredibly reliable editor who has edited this article for years with me.

History:

DKalkin, 16:42, 25 February 2006 added :

Opponents of theories of cultural imperialism argue that it is not connected to any kind of military domination. Professor David Rothkop claims that alleged cultural imperialism is the innocent result of globalization, which allows many consumers across the world who desire American products and ideas access to them. A worldwide fascination with the United States has not been forced on anyone in ways similar to what is traditionally described as an empire, differentiating it from the actions of the British Empire and other more easily identified empires throughout history. Rothkop identifies the desire to preserve the purity of one's culture as xenophobic.^[2]

Katana0182, 00:54, 28 August 2007 Added:

--see the Opium Wars--

Current:

Scholars who disagree with the theory of US cultural imperialism or the theory of cultural imperialism in general argue that what is regarded as cultural imperialism by many is not connected to any kind of military domination, which has been the traditional means of empire. International relations scholar David Rothkop argues that cultural imperialism is the innocent result of globalization, which allows access to numerous US and Western ideas and products that many non-US and non-Western consumers across the world voluntarily choose to consume. A worldwide fascination with the United States has not been forced on anyone in ways similar to what is traditionally described as an empire, differentiating it from the actions of the British Empire--see the Opium Wars--and other more easily identified empires throughout history. Rothkop identifies the desire to preserve the "purity" of one's culture as xenophobic.

If there is disagreement on what the author writes, I would suggest finding a source which has a different view and adding it here.

Inclusionist (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Early 1800'S

It should be mentioned the first presidents' ambitions in expanding US territory, the majority of which occurred before 1850. For one, Jefferson's intentions of an American "empire" on the continent, Manifest Destiny, the Mexican-American war. Empire can be continential and is not limited to overseas possesions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.201.111 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists

As mentioned before, this is not the place for laundry lists of historical US aggression. Please add your contributions to the List of United States military history events

Arundhati Roy + Ramsey Clark

In an opinion piece in the Manchester Guardian, Indian journalist Arundhati Roy wrote, "Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and bombed - since the second world war:" Updated to 2008, it reads China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Vietnam (1961-73), the Belgian Congo (1964), Laos (1964-73), Peru (1965), Cambodia (1969-70), Nicaragua (the 1980s), El Salvador (the 1980s), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99, 2003-08), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001-08). From this, by simply counting, the years 1947-49, 1955-57, 1974-79, 1990 and 2000 were the only peaceful ones. 73% of the years, from World War II's end until 1989, the U.S. was militarily intervening somewhere. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 (not counting conflicts like Colombia where governing elites request help against rebellious subpopulations) the U.S. was actively militarily intervening in a foreign country at least 89% of the years into 2008, an increase of 22%. In 2006, Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, wrote: {{cquote|Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way. Consider, (1) Regime Change in Iran (1953) the Shah replacing democratically elected Mossadegh; Eisenhower (R); (2) Regime Change in Guatemala (1954) military government for democratically elected Arbenz; Eisenhower (R); (3) Regime Change in Congo (1961) assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Eisenhower (R) (4) the Vietnam War (1959-1975), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R); (5) Invasion of Dominican Republic (1965), Johnson (D); (6) Contra Warfare against Nicaragua (1981-1988), resulting in regime change from the Sandinistas to corrupt capitalists; Reagan (R); (7) Attack and occupation of Grenada (population 110,000)(1983-1987) Reagan (R); (8) Aerial attack on the sleeping cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, (1986) Reagan (R); (9) Invasion of Panama Regime Change (1989-1990), George H. W. Bush (R); (10) Gulf War (1991), George H. W. Bush (R); (11) "Humanitarian" occupation of Somalia leading to 10,000 Somali deaths (1992-1993) George H. W. Bush (R) and Bill Clinton (D); (12) Aerial attacks on Iraq (1993-2001) Bill Clinton (D); (13) War against Yugoslavia (1999) 23,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton (D) (14) Missile Attack (21 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles) destroying the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Khartoum which provided the majority of all medicines for Sudan (1998) Bill Clinton (D); (15) Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, Regime Change (2001-present) George W. Bush (R); (16) War of Aggression against Iraq and Hostile Occupation (2003)-present) George W. Bush (R); (17) Regime Change in Haiti (2004) Democratically elected Aristide for three years of chaos and systematic killing, George W. Bush (R).} }

Thanks Inclusionist (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Ramsey Clark part is, admittedly, a laundry list. But, Arundhati Roy offers a much shorter and compact list with analysis. That is considerably different and should, in my opinion, be included. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this information is great, and I have no problem with laundry lists, since I helped create most of List of United States military history events I just don't think this is the right page. William Blum actually has a much more comprehensive list.

How about a link to the Arundhati Roy page, which mentions this list? I will create it now...

Here is another shorter list which I removed in October:

==History of American expansion==

Following is a list of major expansions of the territory of the United States following wars and crusades. The expansions as results of other politically or economically arrangements are not mentioned here because they are not related to the expansionism by force, which characterized the world empires. For a list of all the Unites States acquisitions, most of them done peacefully by negotiations and not related with the notion of empire, please see the list of all territorial acquisitions. 1845 Texas Annexation - The Republic of Texas was a sovereign nation in North America between the United States and Mexico that existed from 1836 to 1845. On February 28, 1845, the U.S. Congress passed a bill that would authorize the United States to annex the Republic of Texas. On March 1, U.S. President John Tyler signed the bill. Despite the fact that Mexican President Antonio López de Santa Anna warned that annexation would be "equivalent to a declaration of war," U.S. President John Tyler signed the treaty of annexation with Texas in April 1844. Britain opposed annexation. After the Senate rejected the annexation the same year, the Congress approved annexation on 28 February 1845. On February 19, 1846, a ceremony was held to mark the official transfer of authority, and Texas President Anson Jones proclaimed: "The final act in this great drama is now performed. The Republic of Texas is no more." 1846-1848 Mexican-American War - United States declared war against Mexico, on May 13, 1846. That year U.S. army occupied Mexico provinces of Alta California and Nuevo México. Next year General Winfield Scott entering the heartland of Mexico occupied its capital Mexico City. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 by American diplomat Nicholas Trist, ended the war and gave the U.S. undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande River, and ceded to the United States the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. 1898 Spanish-American War - Result of the war was that Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over Cuba, ceded Guam, Puerto Rico, and other islands to the United States, and ceded the Philippines to the United States for a payment of $20 million. 1889, 1899 American Samoa - In March 1889, a German naval force invaded a village in Samoa, and by doing so destroyed some American property. Three American warships then entered the Samoan harbor and were prepared to fire on the three German warships found there. Before guns were fired, a typhoon sank both the American and German ships. A compulsory armistice was called because of the lack of warships. International rivalries in the latter half of the nineteenth century were settled by the 1899 Treaty of Berlin in which Germany and the U.S. divided the Samoan archipelago. The following year, the U.S. formally occupied its portion: a smaller group of eastern islands, one of which surrounds the noted harbor of Pago Pago. Since 1962, the western islands have been an independent nation, adopting the name The Independent State of Samoa in 1997. 1898 Hawaii - In 1893, a group of Americans overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom. They formed a Committee of Safety in opposition to the Queen, and seized control of government. Queen Liliuokalani was forced out. United States Government summoned a company of uniformed U.S. Marines to come to Hawaii islands to enforce the so called neutrality but the presence of these troops effectively made it impossible for the monarchy to protect itself. President William McKinley who won the presidential election in November 1896, was open to persuasion by U.S. expansionists and in 1897 agreed to a treaty of annexation from the Republic of Hawaii. 1903 Panama Canal Zone - The Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, signed on November 18, 1903, stipulated that the United States was to receive rights to a canal zone which was to extend five miles on either side of the canal route in perpetuity. The zone was returned to Panama after the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.

Inclusionist (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea and the way you handled this information. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I bend over backward trying to respect other people's contributions, I wish more people did. Thank you for your valuable comments. Inclusionist (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop restoring this list.[3] I respect these contributions, that is why I took the time to move these contributions to another page. thank you. Ikip (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One man's dirty laundry is another's essential evidence. I favor displaying these lists. They give strong evidence for positions presented under this title. Furthermore, User:Ikip seems to have a fondness for 9/11 US govt conspiracy theorists, and his opinions should be weighed accordingly. See Special:Contributions/Ikip. However, liberal inclusionism would accommodate his views, until he starts blanking useful info, as he just did. -74.162.148.6 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Anon. First of all, personal attacks are against wikipedia rules, second, you have my political beliefs wrong, and third, personal attacks only weaken your argument, not strengthen it.

I moved your valuable comments, I did not blank them. The Manchester Guardian, Indian journalist Arundhati Roy info I moved to the Arundhati Roy article, the other list I moved here, since I am not sure what article it goes too. Ikip (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Targeting a user's personal opinions is not a valid (or even ethical) reason for undoing his edits, especially when these opinions have nothing to do with our present concern. The only valid argument mentioned in favor of including the lists is that "They give strong evidence for positions presented under this [American Empire] title". I agree that these lists do provide evidence, but that alone does not mean that they must necessarily be included. Official Wikipedia guidelines (See WP:EMBED) clearly suggest that articles ought to be written in prose. Short lists can be used to make a section easier to read, while longer ("laundry") lists ought to be placed in their own stand-alone articles (See WP:STAND). Note that there already exists other Wikipedia articles that cover the information that these lists display, and that it isn't necessarily a bad thing to remove these lists, as long as we make sure that the information remains accessible (either summarizing it or by making links, which I did). People who read this article will understand that the U.S. has made many interventions, and the article still displays Arundhati Roy's main ideas. Whoever wants more detailed information simply has to make a click. --m3taphysical (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

American Empire Zenith?

File:American Empire Zenith (2004).png

American Empire Zenith (2004)

I have a doubt that this image could be some kind of OR. Who made this diagram? Is it based on any scientific/scholarly research? What purpose does it serve? Why is it relevant? It seems as if it someone just made this up on his own. The image, as it was put in the article, was simply floating on its own without being set in a specific context. Could anyone please inform me as to how this came into being, and how it could possibly prove useful to understand the concept of an "American Empire"? --m3taphysical (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OI states that "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" --m3taphysical (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, it does seem to be OR. Even the description of the image seems a bit strange to be notable. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This obviously doesn't illustrate any possible definition of an American Empire in 2004. Algeria? Belarus?? Russia??? Venezuela???? Let's get serious here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Countries with a US military presence in 2007

There is another image in this article that can be considered an original research. It is based on US military bases. The sources are not clear. The image I made is based on legal basis, defining the "Empire" through the basis of legal documents. The 2004 was chosen, because the territory covered by the "Empire" in 2004 is the largest. It has declined since then, because Mexico left the Rio Pact taking it to a defunct state. And Russians stopped trusting the PfP taking it to a defunct state. Behave as you please, but IMO legal basis is far better in defining the "Empire". And I believe, if you remove this one, you should remove the other one as well. Emilfaro (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly you are saying that military alliances are evidence of America being an Empire as opposed to military bases being evidence as empire. The problem is there are sources that back up the military base argument [4]. Are there any third party sources you can provide for your argument? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this "legal basis" that you are talking about? I'm not aware that there has ever been any legal definition of the American empire. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The legal basis I am talking about is defence pacts establishing military alliances. It is stange not to define an "Empire" this way, but on the basis, that 2 soldiers reside in some counry. Emilfaro (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a big leap from two countries being in an aliance together to saying that one is part of another's empire. Are you really trying to claim that the countries I listed above could in any way be described as having been part of the American Empire in 2004? If nothing else I think that that's a bit of an insult to Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Alexander Lukashenko, Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chávez, who don't exactly have a track record of kow-towing to the United States. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Various leaders may make populist claims. But, what important is - how and when they do act. Putin for example allowed several states to join NATO, signing border agreements with them. If he did not do that, those states would be unable to join NATO. Putin is as well responsible for the destruction of a big part of Russian nuclear arsenal. His predecessor did not do that. Clearly only later he realized, that it was not the thing he wanted to do. Chavez speaks a lot, but has not withdrawn his country from the Rio Pact to this day. And as for Bouteflika, you may be right. Mediterranean Dialogue is not an agreement after all, but negotiations in process. The thinking I imply, could draw a parallel with the Iberian Union for you. Emilfaro (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe a few things need to be made clear concerning these two images. Note that the first image, the American Empire Zenith, does not respect WP:OI. This isn't because of any factual inaccuracy: the treaties depicted do exist. This is also true for the second image of U.S. military bases. However, a big difference exists between the two of them. The first image comprises a controversial textual claim, namely that it depicts something that is supposed to represent the "American Empire Zenith". The problem is that this claim is not based on any scientific/scholarly research - it is simply based on its creator's unpublished opinion - as opposed to the second image, which accurately (or so I believe) describes military bases, and is merely used to illustrate a particular thesis, namely that if an "American Empire" exists, military bases form the basis of this empire (a claim supported by certain scholars, such as Chalmers Johnson). The first image is OR while the other isn't.--m3taphysical (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To Emilfaro: The fact that you alone are claiming that the American Empire Zenith occurred in 2004, without stating sources of any kind except your own vision of the importance of US military alliances, can be characterized as OR. If it was up to me, I'd rename that image to "U.S. military pacts in 2004" (a small change perhaps, but at least it won't be OR). Perhaps it could be used to illustrate some specific part of the article, but it can't simply be used to claim there was a "American Empire Zenith" without citing any credible proponents of such a thesis. --m3taphysical (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A map of allies of the United States

  NATO member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions

  Major non-NATO allies, plus Republic of China (Taiwan)

  Signatories of Partnership for Peace with NATO

For me it is obvious. But it has become normal to question the obvious, and use it to remove the unwanted stuff on Wikipedia, hasn't it :-) Will this one do? Emilfaro (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, it is obvious, that the Rio Pact is not there :-D Emilfaro (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if everyone was to write what they personally believe is obvious, I don't know where we would be! That's why we gotta keep citing sources ;-) The new image looks really nice! Perhaps it could be useful to illustrate a section in the article. --m3taphysical (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You could dig it up from Foreign policy of the United States yourself, and just swap the images :-) But the really ugly thig about that pretty image is that the US just lost South America. The only thing I wanted to do is to picture the American Empire in its full glory in 2004. If you don't want it - so be it. Emilfaro (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that all three of the images above highlight the Philippines. Zenith casts the Philippines as part of the "American Empire" (sic) in 2004 (by what standard, one wonders, did the Phils have such status in 2004?). Countries with says that the Phils had a "US military presence" in 2007 (what is a "presence"? Given, OEF-P is ongoing, but US troops are officially uninvolved there in military operations (for background, see Article XVIII, Section 25 of the Philippine constitution, and note the exception thereto arising from under the 1951 RP/US Mutual Defense Treaty. Do troops engaged in such activities as training exercises constitute a "presence"?). Bases casts the Philippines (which, incidentally, has no US military bases) as a "colony or overseas possession" of a NATO member state. All of these are, at best, oversimplifications. IMHO, all of these are flat wrong. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the Military bases image, the U.S. sent a task force of 660 army personnel to the Philippines in 2002 as part of the war on terror [5]. OEF-P states that the U.S. maintains a presence of 500 military advisers as of today. Even though there may not be a "military base" in a strict sense, the image is nonetheless correct when stating that there are currently more than 100 US troops in the Philippines. Whether these troops are living in a hotel or in military facilities, the point is that the U.S. currently maintains a military presence there. Second, if you take a closer look at the Allies image, you will see that the Philippines are not listed as a "NATO & Colonies" ally, but rather as a "Non-NATO" ally (medium blue). --m3taphysical (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I believe most of us here agree that the claim that an "American Empire Zenith" occurred in 2004 can be abandonned (unless, of course, someone comes up with independant, published and credible sources to support this claim). The main problem now seems to resolve around the factual accuracy of the latter two maps, for which reason I will create a new section. --m3taphysical (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image controversy

There are two maps which have been questioned for their factual accuracy and relevance. Please discuss each image in its own subsection.

Military presence abroad

Countries with a US military presence in 2007

As Boracay Bill (talk) pointed out, should the occasional "use of military facilities" count as a "military presence"? In the case of Norway, for example, there are no stationary U.S. military forces [6]. The only U.S. military presence I know of is during certain military exercises with NATO allies. --m3taphysical (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that other nations occasionally make use of United States military facilities for the purpose of training and joint exercises, then obviously not, otherwise we would be in the nonsensical position of empires being the empires of each other, and at varying times throughout the year. A military presence, however long or brief, doesn't constitute an empire by itself (unless of course I am way off the mark as to what an Empire in the traditional sense actually is).(signed: Jarby - sorry I appear to be logged out) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.119.24 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of the allies of the United States

A map of allies of the United States

  NATO member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions

  Major non-NATO allies, plus Republic of China (Taiwan)

  Signatories of Partnership for Peace with NATO

Shouldn't treaties such as NORAD be included in this map? --m3taphysical (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt these maps' factual accuracy as such, but can anyone explain to me how they contribute towards the definition of an "Empire" without opening the door to other such comparisons? France has a military presence in about twenty countries and is in a number of military alliances with other (independent) nations - does this mean there is once again a French "Empire"? Also how many military bases does it take for a nation to be an empire in this way - Romania has troops in Afganistan, is it now an empire or does it need a few more bases to make the grade?

This whole article seems to be nothing but a group of tenuous links as to how the United States might or might not be or have been an Empire, and has nothing to do with the other, more straightforward articles on the Roman Empire, British Empire or Portuguese Empire. The maps only reinforce that impression.Jarby (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You can use the same logic for the alliance map. Is Latvia an empire because they are a part of NATO? The military base argument still has some merit since its based off of third party sources, but I'm still not sure if the alliance map is needed. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re this original question in this section: NORAD has only two members (USA and Canada); no need for such a map, though American "positions" in Canada are a separate matter (DEW Line, Mid-Canada Line, Pine Tree Line - even Canadian MPs couldn't visit those locations without permission from Washington/NORAD HQ).....also testing grounds lke Nanoose Bay and Cold Lake (used for original Cruise missile testing and other training/base facilities used by the US in Canada could maybe have a separaet map. We are, after all, the primary colony/possession in the "Empire"....Skookum1 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Military abroad image

Whoever knows how to fix the SVG image for military abroad, it is missing troop levels in South Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.57.155 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Map of 2007 military presence needs fixing

I've removed the link to this map because as pointed out on the image's talk page it has some serious omissions. It's below as it appears if someone can fix it and reinsert it.

Countries with a US military presence in 2007

--Ben Applegate (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Maps are needed, and those proposed contain more information than the blank spaces replacing them. It's clear that "American Empire" is a fewer-syllable way of saying "American economic interests, hegemony, and military alliances and interventions to protect them." It is not beyond the ability of people here to produce maps representing those ideas, however debatable some of the inclusions or exclusions may be. The alliances should be easy. The military interventions should be easy. For any doubting this, consider simply combining all the countries (and territories outside the US) shown under the various Lists above. Cite the authors, and show the images. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideological views and theories of the American Empire

I can't believe that this whole section is almost entirely based on the work of a barely known journalist (Ashley Smith). I'm a student of political science and political philosophy, and I can tell you that this simplistic division into five "boxes" of imperialism does not sound very academic. This guy must have gone through a few papers and made up his five categories on the run, because the whole section sounds like OR to me. Maybe someone could help by finding more credible sources (and by that I mean real experts on the subject) that explain existing interpretations of U.S. imperialism? --m3taphysical (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Leninist" sections supposedly claims that "Chomsky, Foster, Kolko, Lens, Williams, Zinn, Marxist anthropologist David Harvey, and, most notably, Indian writer Arundhati Roy each hold some version of this view, as does Smith himself." when, in fact few of these people could even remotely be considered "Leninist" in the strict sense of the word. --m3taphysical (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Ursula Franklin's "globalization as warfare" ideas have some similarity to the last two categories. Esn (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

where on this article is the break up of the american empire?

the territory of the american empire broke up in the period from 1946 to 2000 here are some known territorys lost Philipines 1946 ,Trust territory of the pacific islands 1991 to 1994 and also Panama canal zone december 1999. 99.51.212.6 (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Define territory. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography

I know that America is not a kingdom or empire and that it never was, at least as an independant country ruled by european decendants but shouldn't there be a map of America here anyway? The map would show the area the country claims as their own in the present day with a lighter colour representing all the territory that they had owned for at least some time such as Cuba, Phillipeans and northern Oregon County, (the latter being striped because they did not own it alone.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Cuba was never a US territory. It was a protectorate for a while following the Spanish-American War. See Treaty of Paris (1898). Also, as I understand it, conflicts between claims of multiple claimants to Oregon Country were resolved by treaties growing out of negotiations. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry Adams

For what it is worth James in his History of the United States of America During the Administration of Thomas Jefferson (Volume II Chapter 5 The Louisiana Debate) say the US became an empire when it added Louisiana as a territory instead of as a state. This was written in 1884 before the Spanish War. Nitpyck (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But that whole territory soon became states. Ooops!108.69.163.27 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But the article says, "On the one hand there is a strong imperialistic drive in terms of America's occupation of the North American continent, ...". Why "Ooops"? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm limited to online access and Adams' book is not previewable online. P. 74-75 of this gives a bit of info, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

American Empire. 26,252 references

Why is the American Empire is a controversial term ?(First Sentance) When I check the British Empire or Roman Article,they are not termed controversial.

Did the British Empire exist ? Did the Roman Empire exist? Does the American Empire exist? of course it does. For those who are new to the subject or upset by the subject, you could read a few of the 26,252 books on Amazon about American Imperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Ladd (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because the British and Roman empires were ruled by emperors? Which is what makes them an empire? No one calls the Roman Republic an empire. Unless you want to redefine the term, in which case the european union should certainly qualify as an empire.--Work permit (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can the case be made for the radical expansion of executive power in the United States, having a cursory appearance to a unitary executive, i.e. Emperors? If so there can be specific examples of unitary action undertaken by the President, albeit with a cursory acknowledgement of authority from Congress. There is a veritable litany of sources and information to support this thesis. Although, I feel that, this page should deal with it as a claim by, what few, individual authors or pundits have contrived this terminology, with supporters and detractors of this theory, much like the denial and conspiracy pages. By making this change i feel it would eliminate the bias in the readers eyes and still be a relevant entry. fogle62 (talk) 20:01 16 December 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

You're actually comparing the President to an emperor?? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

An emperor isn't needed for an empire despite the name.G. R. Allison (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The empire precedes the emperor and not vice-versa, the fact that America has never had an emperor does not dictate whether it's foreign policy is imperialistic or not. 24.201.147.13 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

coal smoke not gunsmoke

I concede this is a minor point, but the description of the plume on the hat of Columbia in the Puck cover as gun smoke seems to be wrong. There is no smoke coming from the gun barrels in the picture. The picture does clearly show smoke coming from the smoke stack. The warships of this time burned coal, and made a lot of smoke when underway. The picture somewhat resembles the USS Olympia (C-6), the flagship of the U.S. fleet at Manila. This ship still exists as a museum, and you can compare the photo of the ship to the picture to identify the smoke stacks. --AJim (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This country is a nation of thieves...

If we are adding the quote from Stokely Carmicicahel, I propose we add the following quote from Osama bin Laden as well "To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." or alternatively "God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."--Work permit (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised Osama cares so much about the killing of muslim children and women, considering how his Al Qaeda "heroes" murder them every day in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. Where was he when the Taliban was stoning women to death for the most ludicrous of offenses when they were in power in Afghanistan? Oh yeah, he was their honored guest and fully supported such measures as part of his own "imperialist" agenda.108.69.163.231 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I would posit that the second quote you mention i.e. "God knows ..." is more than relevant and worthy of inclusion, along with Carmichael's statement.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would the Bin Laden quote be relevant to this article? The actions mentioned in the quote have much more to do with the USA's kneejerk support of Israeli imperialism than with American imperialism. Honestly, how does helping Israel invade Lebanon serve any goal that could be described as American "imperialist"? What did the "American Empire" gain from that? Strictly speaking, from a real politik/imperialist viewpoint, the only things in the entire middle-east that are worth fighting for are 1) oil and 2) the Suez Canal. Does Israel control either one of these? No. Does Lebanon? No. Does the US have any military bases in Israel (or Lebanon)? No. Has the US been able to use Israel for support troops in either Gulf Wars? No (if it did even more Arabs would hate the US). So again, how is this quote relevant to this discussion? It might have a place in an article on the US-Israel alliance, but here it makes little sense. If the US was truly acting in the middle-east out of Imperialist motives, wouldn't it make a lot more sense for it to support the Arabic states and cut Israel loose, for, after all, except for unnecessarily incurring the hatred of millions of Muslims--not to mention, wasting billions of US taxpayer dollars a year on US aid to Israel--what does the US actually get out of Israel being its ally?108.69.163.231 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ok--Work permit (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes by Carmichael and Osama bin Laden

Why the hell are the statements of an Islamic fundamentalist and communist fanatic worthy of especial importance under the heading of "Viewpoints of American imperialism"? And even if they were true, who cares? Why should a pro-Western American take more into account the currency of what a communist/Islamist says about the West than the scant regard paid by communist/Islamist of what a pro-Western person says to them?

Apart from the content, the positioning too. When you look at where the quotes are placed, one would think at face value that the viewpoints about American imperialism center solely on the negative, when in fact, there's an entire spectrum of viewpoints on American imperialism (e.g. the liberal empire theory by Ignatieff and Niall Fergusson). I mean if I wanted to take the gloves off, I could probably cite (at a minimum) 10 different reasons why US imperialism, to parrot the neo-conservative line, has been the deux ex machina for all the world's problems, how the US has brung freedom, democracy and liberty to all four corners of the world, how the poor huddled masses flock to the United States in numbers that far outstrip any other country in the world and how it will and must always be a "city upon the shining hill."

But I'm not going to do that because aside from provoking another person citing 10 counter-arguments as to why US imperialism has been a threat to world peace and thereby saving this page from degenerating into a shouting match of quid-pro-quo, this is an encyclopedia. And the last time I checked, encyclopedia are supposed to be objective, it's duty of honour is to report the facts without taking a side. And clearly, having statements by an Islamist and a Communist made to represent the general sentiments of humankind about US foreign policy is an unconscionable betrayal of encyclopedic objectivity. 77.103.8.120 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IP 77, there is currently a sub section on "benevolent imperialism", perhaps you should include some of your "pro-imperialist" arguments to that section, making sure to reference them to reliable sources (WP:RS)? However, both sides of the argument are relevant to the article, even ones by those you deem an "Islamic fundmamentalist" and "Communist fanatic".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Redhtoreau (removed personal attack per WP:NPA), I wonder if you even read what you write. You say, "perhaps you should include some of your pro-imperialist arguments to that section[benevolent imperialism]." So notice how the two quotes by Carmichael and Bin laden are placed are under the section of "Viewpoints of American Imperialism," NOT under the section of "Imperialism at the heart of US Foreign Policy" and how in all the reverts that you've made to this section, not once have you moved the two quotes to the appropriate section to which they belong.

But the issue of positioning isn't the only bone I have to pick. Why single out the quotes of Carmichael and Bin Laden for especial importance? Why are they so special? Why not cite Hitler, Stalin or Mao and their views whose animus towards US foreign policy was probably commensurate to that of Carmichael and bin Laden's? And why stop there? Why not cite me the hundreds of anti-US foreign policy quotes by Chomsky, the members of "Progressive anti-Zionism," Muslim council groups in the West, socialist leaders in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia?

So you see where I'm getting at and why I object not to the content, but why the quotes by Carmichael or bin Laden is given noteworthy importance by having them boxed off because: a) there's a vast array of different reasons one could ascribe to "US Imperialism" that includes much more than the caterwaul of thievery and illegal occupation; b) there's no commonly agreed upon standard for determining importance because what or who one thinks is important is an exercise of subjectivity and c) even if there was a standard for determining importance, what's stopping somebody from quoting and giving noteworthy importance (in the form of boxing their quotes out) the views of hundreds of pro-US foreign policy academics? If that happened, then wouldn't this article degenerate into a page full of quotes by authors? 77.103.8.120 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if it belongs here but Osama's views on American Imperialism is crucial to understanding his war against America and should be quoted in his page and in a page discussing the 9/11 attacks and al-Quada. Alatari (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Imperialistic behaviour in history

There needs to be a section fairly high up that details exactly when America has behaved like an empire. Manifest Destiny, dealing with European powers, development of maritime trade network backed by naval muscle, and then the takeover of Spanish colonies. There's no point in dealing with the political theories if there's no historical evidence. Of course, it also needs to be shown how America is not a traditional empire and how it differs from others through history in terms of its nationalism, benevolent aspects of its use of soft power and its insular nature. Therein I believe are the most interesting aspects of the American empire. Mdw0 (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S. bases

This edit poping up on my witchlist drew my attention to the U.S. military bases abroad as a form of empire section section of this article. There, I noticed content reading, "... U.S. allowed many of its overseas territories or occupations to gain independence after World War II. [...] However most of those former possessions continue to have U.S. bases within their territories. In the case of Okinawa, ..."

The term, "territories or occupations" seems a bit vague. What is an "occupation"? Do Italy, France, Germany and/or other post-WW-II european countries fall into the category of "U.S. occupations"? Does Japan? Does Taiwan? Does South Korea? Okinawa is apparently considered in the context of this article to be one former "occupation" (or "possession"?) of the U.S.; what are the other countries so considered? I'd like to bounce that list against the List of United States military bases article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

---

American Empire → American imperialism — This article does not focus on an actual Empire the same way as other articles. It focuses more on an imperial culture or view in America. The proposed name would better express the content of the article. MrTranscript (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This took some thinking about, but I think overall this page does talk a lot more about theories of imperialism in America. Not a US controlled landmass. Flosssock1 (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to American imperialism, as this is not a proper noun. Ucucha 16:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Agree with the above, I have edited it within the request. No need for new request as it is only a minor chnage to capatalization. MrTranscript (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Theodore Roosevelt

• In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt notably referred to the "invisible Government" of the United States as an unholy alliance.[61] Referring to major party politics in the U.S., this use was geopolitical with respect to the economic reach of the Trusts and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) and the U.S. foreign policies supporting them, which is ironic. Early in his career, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the Spanish-American War[62] and was an enthusiastic proponent of testing the U.S. military in battle, at one point stating "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one".[63][64][65]

Could someone rework that statement? He did say those things and the NPR special says by 1912 he had reversed his opinion on annexing the Philippines and it seems that this speech is indicative of that reversal but I am not that knowledgeable about this time period and do not have supporting sources. Alatari (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Uncited content

When is someone going to delete the uncited content? Tags are fine, but I think there is an expiration after a reasonable amount of time. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Map Revision Proposal

The map detailing U.S. Military presence internationally should probably be updated. The full proposal and discussion topic is located here. --Xaliqen (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Telegraph article of possible use/interest

I thought this recent news item might be of interest in this wiki article Robin Yapp, US still acts like an 'empire' with Latin America, says Brazil's President Lula, The Telegraph, 28 December 2010 thanks Peter morrell 07:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

In the section Issues concerning the concept of "imperialism" and "empire" I removed the following 2 sentences for lack of NPOV & lack of sources:

Identifying the United States as an empire by its international behavior is controversial.

The term has become very controversial in the United.

This looks like weasel words WP:W2W, and so do other parts in the article ie the introduction & Marxist–Leninist sections; some of these writers are not Marxist at all (maybe Socialist, but communist or related to Marx? They barely even discuss him!). "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed" and this "may disguise a biased view" against the writers mentioned ie Roy, Zinn, Kolko, Chomsky etc. Basically the article refers to them & those who say the US has an empire are "communists", and their POV is fringe. That does not meet WP:NPOV, and is subject to removal.

What's interesting is that Edward Said gets only 1 mention, and the other writes above get singled out as communists. Hilarious. Said did much to put imperialism at the forefront, and not just in the context of "culture". Ebanony (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" Gimme a break. Are you really trying to say there's no controversy as to describing America as imperialist? That's what the whole article is about! People saying America is imperialist and others saying it isnt. Mdw0 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The claims of "controversy" have no sources. The article should focus on reality, not what some people supposedly think, and these claims are part of the lack of NPOV. Unsourced claims need to go.

"This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." WP:V When I asked editors to back up these claims, you reverted it saying "does it really need to be captioned here? its in all the citations and quotes" [7]

"This policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." That includes the Intro & the section under "Marxism" where it says "Chomsky, Foster, Kolko, Lens, Williams, Zinn, Indian writer Arundhati Roy and Ashley Smith each hold some version of this view." There is no source.[8]; as per policy, such should be removed right now. Mdw0 Best to read WP:V. I put citation needed to allow you to add a reliable source. Ebanony (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Citations

The Introduction has no citations; the section Issues concerning the concept of "imperialism" and "empire" looks like WP:OR, and relies on a dictionary and focuses on the etymology of the word imperialism; such is nearly irrelevant: the word may be new, but the concept predates Marxism by thousands of years (argued in section Marxist–Leninist), and the attempt to link scholars who discuss "imperialism" as communist is lack of WP:NPOV, and has no reliable sources V or primary sources with quotes, not the claims in the text. A few citations & claims that have problems:

"Debate over whether a particular political entity such as the United States is an empire has to be considered in terms of all of these defining characteristics, and whether it is still an empire if it fits only one of these definitions." A reference to the dictionary, and lacking NPOV & without citation. Action: removed.

The long & unnecessary J Adams quote is a primary source & is typical political rhetoric [9]

The part on Jefferson in the 1780's relies in part on [10], an OpEd piece by Max Boot arguing for the US to invade Iraq.

The obvious WP:WEASEL words of "leftist historian Sidney Lens" and a book cover for a citation vs the obvious bias against the "left" (whatever that is) as opposed to using Max Boot without reference to his extreme right wing POV & advocacy for war.

The long & unnecessary quote from William Jennings Bryan is a blog, not a scholarly work on imperialism [11]

The quote from Mark Twain is long & likewise unnecessary, and the citation links to a Wikipedia page on some other topic [12]

Of the 11 citations in this section, only 4 appear to be good, and even then look out of context; the rest of the citations need to be deleted; the other text simply have no citations at all! Looks like a lot of OR & a very strange way of discussing "imperialism" as defined by the contributor who feels he/she has the right to define the only way to discuss it (& directly said it). That's just the Intro & section 1. The claim inMarxist–Leninist violates V (no citation) & NPOV (linking the "left" to Marx): "Chomsky, Foster, Kolko, Lens, Williams, Zinn, Indian writer Arundhati Roy and Ashley Smith each hold some version of this view." "some version"? Says who? The article makes it seem like "imperialism" began in 1898 with people who had some apparent links to Marx & some fringe writers who followed afterwards. Some of this clearly needs to be deleted.Ebanony (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I asked editors to provide sources for the claims in the article on American Imperialism. I gave clear reasons why the links have been added, and listed specific violations of V, NPOV and WP:WEASEL with the ideological use of words as currently found in article. Your response was to undo my edits here [13] & here [14]. First, both your edits removed my requests asking for a simple source to back up these claims, and were hence unjustified; second, the sections have no citations or those listed do not support the statements; third some of these claims concern "living persons"; fourth you've started edit warring WP:EW with your undo's. Please understand that verifying claims is not optional:

"any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question" & despite your incorrect claim "The sources of this statement are all the way through the rest of the article - does it really need to be captioned here?" [15], Wikipedia says: "This policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons."

I have reverted your edit the 1st time "to enforce certain overriding policies", and this "is not considered edit warring" on my part because "on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required." Policy allows me to do it again, or simply remove the offending content. I cannot say the same for your insistence on making unverified claims. If you revert my request to have sources added again, I will contact administration for comment. You've ignored my comments on the talk page [16] & here [17]. Policy is clear: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."Ebanony (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, it may be a mistake to attempt to use logic against such an overblown accusation, but I'm certainly not scared of being proved wrong.

I have NEVER said citations are not needed or not important, and I agree that the 'lacking citations' banner here is appropriate. My deletion of the individual 'citation needed' notices is not saying that the citations aren’t needed. It was done because it is redundant to have the individual notices when there's a banner that covers the whole article. If there is a banner at the top of the page saying the whole article requires citations, then how is it relevant or sensible to also have individual citation needed notices all through the article? Answer - it ISNT relevant or sensible. Once the banner is there, that presupposes the need for citations all through the article. The removal of the individual citations is a natural extension of YOUR edit of the banner inclusion. You are now insisting on having both the banner and the individual citation requests. Does that mean you want two citations for that line? Please choose between the banner and the citation needed entries on the lines - having both is not just overkill, its logically fallacious. I've also NEVER insisted on making unverified of claims. I just thought that describing the various opposing legitimate sources as a controversy was obvious. If you have a variety of famous authors with opposite viewpoints how is it not a controversy? My position is that demanding a source saying an argument as its presented is controversial (obvious) as opposed to not being controversial (impossible) is excessive, hence my questioning its removal on those grounds. However, that mental connection is a bit difficult for some, and because the word controversy has been abused in the past where people have said controversy exists when it doesnt, I came to the conclusion that this is one of those cases where a source saying the sky is blue might be required, so when my assumption was challenged, I acquiesced. For now.

Since you like to link to the edit warring page so much, you might want to have a little perusal of that article yourself, especially the opening paragraph about what an edit war actually is. There needs to be repeated reversions, with a triple undo needed to be considered a problem. I reverted one of your deletions once. Not three times, not twice, once. Following your subsequent reversion I didn’t put it back in because I knew I didn’t have the time just then to go through the citations to find one that makes the clear declaration of a controversy that would satisfy you. As I said, I acquiesced for now. A single reversion on both sides is not an edit war by any means, but you can have an administrator verify that fact for you if you like. If you're so sensitive and precious that you want to call a single revert an edit war then I'd hate to see what you'd call a real meaty debate with multiple contributors.

You also need to be careful about taking the 'instant removal policy for unsourced material about living persons' too far. You might want to investigate the difference between material that is a BLP - a biography of a living person, and material about the work of a living person because they're far from the same thing. When a writer or essayist or journalist writes something for the express purpose of disseminating an idea or opinion, then they are inviting it to be read and acted upon and commented on. Comments about that work do not have the same protection and duty of care as details about the individual's personal life. My position is that the material is this article is NOT a biography or biographical, it deals almost solely with political commentary, so you have no special deletion privileges over and above the normal Wikipedian's right to edit anything and have it reverted. That’s also something you could check with an administrator about.

Since you also seem to be making judgement regarding NPOV, you might want to check the NPOV page too. Just follow your own links. A page about power and politics that attracts different viewpoints cannot possibly be neutral in every sentence. What is required is that all significant views must be represented fairly. How do we know a viewpoint is significant? Answer - There are citations of significant adherents. When those citations are in the text and reference list, then it takes a lot more to stain an article as non-NPOV than you have presented. Your 'NPOV' section in the discussion complains about certain factual errors and a lack of citations, but there's no evidence of an article-wide bias. You also seem think that being named as a communist or left wing is necessarily bad, some sort of slur, as opposed to welcome and sensible and often also a declaration by the writer themselves. I agree that the listing of names should be deleted, not because its a shaming, but because it is more like a listing of cheerleaders. Your weasel word link also shows that 'controversy' is not a weasel word unless it gives a fringe viewpoint undue weight or lacks sufficient backup describing what the controversy is about. The backup in this article is extensive, and the viewpoints range across the political spectrum. Use of the word is not an issue. Again, check with an administrator if you like. Good luck with that, because you've got no NPOV problem, no insistance on unverified claims, no legitimate weasel word and no biographical material to be worried about.

However, despite your incorrect assumptions and accusations regarding my edits, I have absolutely no problem with most of your other contributions whatsoever. My only small issue would be that you seem to be one of those people who wants citations for every single sentence in an article, rather than looking at a paragraph or a section as a whole. The bit you've quoted above says citation requirements apply to articles and sections of articles - not each sentence. The sentence you've deleted that introduces the upcoming material in the paragraph and describes the debate, is one of those I'd leave in. Rather than deleting it, just rewrite it without the 'should.'

Happy to discuss any of these issues. Mdw0 (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The point of using a citation needed request in a specific area indicates that particular claim lacks references & may be harmful; wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth: "readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Why? "To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source." So evident or not, it needs a source WP:V. That was an opportunity to add a source. The other option is deletion, as per policy. Now, we can keep the code at the top of the page if you prefer instead of single references, but it helps to discuss this, not just change people's edits without a word like you did; such might give the wrong impression. One point: claims about living persons isn't just biographies; it can result in legal challenges by said persons. Nor did I remove them instantly; I asked people to add a source. That's the logical way to avoid arguments.

The use of the dictionary & just making things up to present a narrow pov is not neutral. Example ie"Debate over whether a particular political entity such as the United States is an empire has to be considered in terms of all of these defining characteristics, and whether it is still an empire if it fits only one of these definitions". [[18]] Says who? The Oxford dictionary didn't make that claim; some editor did. This is not isolated. The entire intro lacks citations & may be totally wrong (can't verify it); the first section has some citations, but they're primary & don't support more than the quotes; the rest before & after is barren (can't verify it). There simply is no support in the first 11 citations for the claims in the Intro or the 1st section beyond the quotes, and a sentence or two. I went through each of them. You can argue POV or edit warring (which looks more like a misunderstanding at this point); however, the lack of resources is precisely why it's lacking NPOV. Who makes these claims? What major POV's are represented here? From the first look, it's a cleverly designed attack on the writers cited (like Zinn etc) and their pov's of imperialism. Looks like a good case of OR.

Your "logic" is confusing. You said: "I agree that the 'lacking citations' banner here is appropriate." But further down said, "The backup in this article is extensive, and the viewpoints range across the political spectrum." A contradiction. If it were "extensive", then why would you say there's a lack of citations?

The article should never have been written on the "controversy" of the US being an empire or not; it should be covered in a section, but not more. It makes more sense to discuss what imperialism is (by scholars who've written on the subject), and why they say the US is an imperial power, not some sort of "communist conspiracy" by "leftist" writers who call the US an imperialist power- not neutral (it is possible to achieve). So what reputable scholars question the US being imperialistic? Even the right wing "neo-conservative" writer cited argued the US was a benevolent imperialist power [[19]] Other than the former Secretary of War? Whoever claims there is a big "controversy" needs to avoid the "sky is blue" argument & just get appropriate citations or understand the lack of citations banner includes the removal of unsourced claims. That's V policy. This controversy has been taken out of proportion & exaggerated, and the reality of US policy is eclipsed by worthless quotes by J Adams & the Sec of War (quite the conquerers themselves) & other bits & bobs of unsourced text that distract. I don't do "drive by flagging"; this article has problems, and I'm not the first to say it. Even if there were such a "debate", there is simply no evidence for the big controversial "debate" among scholars in this article or the talk page.Ebanony (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing article-wide NPOV. Where's the 'cleverly designed attack' here? I dont see any vitriol or weasel words, just discussion of viewpoints on imperialism. If left wing writers call the US imperialist, description of that viewpoint is perfectly NPOV if its balanced with descriptions of other viewpoints. You can have a perfectly neutral article that lacks citations. Lack of citations doesnt mean non-NPOV. It just means accuations of non-NPOV cant be refuted. I'm not 100% sure what you're saying on the controversy - are you saying that there is general agreement that America is an empire or isnt one? Whether America displays imperialist tendencies, or doesnt? Or are you saying the overwhelming non-controversial view is that America totally benign or totally rapacious? Because I'm getting plenty of views both ways all the way through. I'm seeing controversy. In fact, looking through this again I reckon you could delete everything unsourced and end up with basically the same article with the same controversy. So go for it. My reasoning for questioning the need for specific referencing for using the term 'controversy' is explained above. I dont see that using that term is a big deal at all. If you're not pleased with a certain wording, then fix it rather than calling the whole atricle NPOV. That sentence describing the debate being about whether America is an empire if it doesnt exhibit all the classic definitions of an empire just needs to be rewritten, not deleted. Mdw0 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV because there is a discussion, whereas before there was none. I think maybe we misunderstood each other over the sources, & it looked like you/others simply felt no sources were needed. But reading your replies I see that is not the case, so I was too quick to use it. However, there is POV. First, WP:WEASEL words or at least lacking impartial tone & Characterizing opinions of people's work WP:NPOV:

"them piece by piece [sic]” [6][7] In turn, Leftist historian Sidney Lens notes that from its inception some"

Sidney Lens is singled out for being "left", but the use of a right wing neo-conservative in footnote #7 is not mentioned. Either point to everyone's politics, or to no one's. The "lack of citations" means original research, and also POV. That article by Max Boot is cited, but not discussed. He, a right wing writer who ALSO describes the US as imperialist, and says the Sec of War (quoted in article) denied the US was imperialist. Boot says he was wrong: "The problem is that it isn't true." He argues "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good". [20] This citation does not discuss any "debate", just the "danger...we won't use all of our power for fear of the "I" word -- imperialism." Hardly a denial that the US is imperial. Here the "right" agree with the "left" Sidney Lens that the US is imperialist. That's not a debate. This article pretends a few fringe right wing delialists (the real source of this nonsense) are actually a large part of the academic community saying the US is not imperial. That is why the article has no citations. Boot says "We're going to be called an empire whatever we do. We might as well be a successful empire." He's correct when he calls it an empire.

The use of LaFeber Walter's Inevitable Revolutions in footnote #6 doesn't so much argue if the US was an imperial power; Zinn & Lens in The forging of the American empire (footnote #8), among others improperly cited say similar things: namely the US is imperial & here're the things it did. Yes, they've got their own axes to grind, but who in the article denies the US is an imperial power? Where is this debate? No evidence is given for this (except the Admams & Rumsfeld quote), which can hardly be used to make that argument. The real debate is what Max Boot said: (a paraphrase) - the US is imperialist, but does it uses its power/force for the good of the world. The focusing on "Marxism" is not something I would ev ater come to if I rewrote the article. Yes, some socialists have pointed to the US being imperialistic, but they were not the first to call the US as an expanding power competing with the Europeans to control other countries that goes back at least to the War of 1812 when the British said it. There is disagreement on how the US uses its power (some say for good, others for bad). The argument that it is not imperialist? The article presents 0 evidence for this. It's sources say the opposite. Even though some in the US deny this, we should not give due/undue weight to fringe/poorly sourced ideas. Where do these claims come from?Ebanony (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re removal and usage of the [N]POV template, please see When to remove and How to use at {{POV}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, I'm of the opinion it should have the NPOV designation, and reluctantly removed it only to avoid needless bickering. If you feel it should be there, then it can be put back. I see plenty of OR, unsourced claims and NPOV, but I can't fix the article by myself when other editors argue with me that claims (without sources) are "evident". I'm trying to be conciliatory, but there is no real ongoing discussion.Ebanony (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of sources there that claim America is not imperialistic, and plenty of examples of its insular nature. Why are the Adams and rumsfeld quotes not acceptable as illustrations of this viewpoint? The change to the opening paragraph is a much worse example and belongs waaaaay down the article. If you see something in the article that genuinely violates POV, that tips the entire article's viewpoint one way or another, then explain it and remove it. For the moment you have the running. Mdw0 (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said there weren't sources that made those claims. But those sources need not be given undue weight. Rumsfeld's quote misrepresents the author's article (who said the US is an empire & that Rumsfeld was wrong). The US has an empire, and few serious scholars would claim otherwise. There is no real controversy, just apologetics - precisely what that quote is. People in the US may argue about it, but that doesn't make it a controversy. They deny many basic facts & present extreme & false views in the media. Bottom line is the article presents no credible sources that support the US is not an empire or that there is a big controversy. The connection to Marxism (original research & an obvious attempt to discredit the writers) is pure nonsense, and a common tactic in that country (McCarthyism type stuff). That is why those quotes shouldn't be used. The sources say the OPPOSITE.Ebanony (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebanoy, responding to your comment above directed at me, you had said that you removed the NPOV tag because there is a discussion, whereas before there was none. The {{POV}} docs say that the template should only be inserted when there is an ongoing dispute in an article and that, once it is inserted, any editor may remove it in the absence of any discussion or if the discussion has become dormant. My understanding of the purpose of the template is that it serves as a means of alerting interested editors and readers to the fact that there is an in-progress discussion about POV issues and navigating them to that discussion; that it should remain in place as long as the discussion continues; that it should be removed if/when there is no in-progress discussion. I'm involved on the opposite side of a similar case at Talk:Timeline of Philippine sovereignty#NPOV tag, where I'm trying to get an NPOV tag removed from an article where the NPOV discussion has been dormant for a year or so. I'm not involved in the discussion in this section other than in re template usage, and haven't followed the discussion. I've got other concerns at present and I'll try to avoid getting drawn into this discussion by not commenting more widely here&now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would've thought your concession that many Americans dont consider America to be an empire and argue against it would have to be a pretty clear indicator of controversy. What would you consider a controversy? I dont see how you can label the whole opposing argument - that America isnt an empire, and that it has strong currents of non-interventionism and such an insular viewpoint - as being so marginal that it should have no voice. Comparing America to other empires such as Britain's or Rome's shows many glaring differences, the only modern empire with similar behaviour is Russia's. Given those comparisons, removing that whole side of the argument would be just as excessive as a cheerleader for America removing all criticism of it. Denouncing one entire side or another of the argument as apologist is POV in itself. If you want to make some edits to redress the balance, go right ahead, but they'd better not go too far, otherwise who can guarantee the edits would last? One idea of balance isnt another's, and I'd disagree either side has undue weight. Mdw0 (talk)