Talk:Overseas expansion of the United States

message: * This new long list of alleged imperialism really stretches the meaning of the word.  Many of these could simply be "foreign policy" or foreign conflicts with no credible tie to "imperialism".  At the very least it should be trimmed.  And if it stays, I'm definitely removing the prejudicial rhetoric many entries include. -- VV 21:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. For instance, the section on colonialism in China and the Boxers is as long as it is on the page for China! And yet the US involvment here was peripheral. It seems like the agenda for this page is to extend US "involvement" to as much as possible to implicate the US. Why are similar pages for History of Russian Imperialism or History of Swedish Imperialism non-existent or sparse at best? Germany had numerous proper colonies around the globe, yet the page is a simple list. Double-standards are obvious, but more importantly one expects an encyclopedia to have proportional information. An encyclopedia that had 12 pages on "Cats" and a single paragragh for "Dogs" would be a joke. Unfortunately the partisan political agendas of many participants put politics ahead of the user experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates999 (talk • contribs) 
* I don't accept this. The whole point about this project is that we should aim for detail, and this is one of the most comprehensive lists around. Furthermore it states at the top: "The following is a list of incidents involving the United States which some view as having hidden or overt imperialist motivations" - that is, it points out from the start that only some regard them to be imperialist acts. Moreover, each coup says "alleged", even in cases where it's pretty much generally accepted or proven. Neither do I think it stretches the meaning of the word imperialism - it's a list of actions where the United States is purported to have meddled in the internal affairs of other nations to further its own interests. To simply suggest that the overthrow of governments and their replacement with regimes more pliant to US interests isn't imperialist and indeed is simply "foreign policy" does not seem reasonable to me. And what prejudicial rhetoric are you referring to? Jonesy 22:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: See, this article becoming exactly what I knew it was going to be. The term "imperialism" is no longer being used in any sort of factual context, but rather as a "catch all" term to describe any foreign activities (real or imagined) of Republican governments that certain members of the political left do not care for. user:J.J.
*I would agree with the above. I think there is a valid place somewhere for the list in Wikipedia, but in general large lists in the middle of an article are bad formatting. (I'm also certain Italy and Greece wouldn't delight at being lumped into the Third World) - SimonP 02:47, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
* I do find it interesting that, except for Vietnam, every single intervention on the list was the work of a Republican president.  That is hardly NPOV.  It overlooks, to cite one obvious example, the Bay of Pigs invation under Kennedy; or the various bombings of Iraq under Clinton.  I think it is impossible to keep a list of this nature short, because every single instance of US foreign intervention can be described "by some" as imperialist.  So I think the short list should be removed from this page, and the link to all foreign interventions kept to replace it.  Fishal 03:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New long list 

message: This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Deletion

message: Portions of an article called American Empire duplicate the subject of this article.  The rest of the article is about a rhetorical device and should not be merged. -Acjelen 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Empire 

message: Can anyone tell me how I'm supposed to cite an article in a college paper? Thanks. Karatloz 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean how to cite this page in an article you are writing I would just note the web page of the article. If you mean how do you cite a College paper article you've incorporated into this page in the references see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style.  -AllanHainey 10:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Wikipedia

message: "After the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson signed the Louisiana Government Bill, which denied the new United States territory the right to self-government. Instead, it was to be ruled by military officials under direct orders from the capitol. Since most of the population of the territory consisted of non-whites and Catholics, Jefferson felt that the government should suspend its right to self-government until enough white settlers moved west to command a majority."
Can we get some actual cites and evidence for this? Otherwise, it doesn't seem very NPOV
--ViperDaim 64.154.26.251 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jefferson and LA Purchase 

message: Stating that the current cultural imperialism is "unintentional" and "a side effect of capitalism" and that "government has no role on the industries" of culture is extreme POV.LtDoc 16:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Imperialism 

message: Jingoist Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
I have been monitoring this entry for about 2 weeks.  I am disappointed at the extreme Jingoists who frequent this entry.  Every day someone else tries to vandilize this site. 
There has never been a "Vote for Deletion" about America being the "beacon of freedom" to the world.  None of these jingotists would argue that this is POV.
Since jingotists cannot argue the history of American imperialism, they characteristically attack the source, trying to other like minded jingoists  delete the site.  
Pathetic, irrational behavior you should be ashamed.Travb 20:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They wont be ashamed mate, they know exactly what they do. They honestly believe imperialism is a good thing. That they have a right to rule the world. The original phrase jiongism was to take land by force if I am not mistaken? What do we have around the world? Phillipines = US; Kosovo = US; Japan = US; Germany = US; France = US; Spain = US; I could keep going forever.. is there ANY country the US hasnt got a military presence in? OH thats right, libya and iran... and then we know wich two countries are being invaded next... 
213.141.89.53 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I pity the jingoists 

message: In the first sentence of the introduction we read that the United States was initially "of little international import." Little import compared to WHAT?
Later the introduction describes the 13 colonies as "small."  Small compared to WHAT? To what it became later?  Too obvious to mention. Small compared to European states?  Untrue. The remainder of the introduction makes analogies rather than saying what the article is about.
The first dates we encounter in the article itself are the 1960s and 1970s.  The historiography is discussed before the history, and then we are told truisms and informed that they are truisms. Fortunately, the rest of the article is better than the terrible start while most of it still manages to be simply bad with lapses into the terrible. I tried to fix American exceptionalism but now I have less time, so I'm just tagging this and hoping someone else will do a repair. This article shouldn't be deleted. It should be improved. Flying Jazz 04:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful writing for the introduction. Bad to awful writing elsewhere.

message: I am having a hard time figuring out why this page is here.  Most of the topics listed here belong in other articles.  Incidents involving the Indian Wars and U.S. westward expansion belong in Manifest Destiny.  Incidents involving U.S. policy in the Americas belong in the Monroe Doctrine.  Current issues belong in Foreign relations of the United States.  This page seems merely to be a place for persons with anti-american views to express themselves.  I think this article should be dismantled and the information moved to other appropriate articles.  Please discuss.
:I think wikipedia should have an article on United States imperialism. Part of that article should deal with its causes. Another part of that article should deal with its history up to the present. This page shouldn't be here, but the fact that this page is here and that United States imperialism redirects to this page is a first sign that horrible, disputed POV writing is ahead as if someone with an axe to grind said, "You think it's debateable whether the US is imperialistic? Ha! I won't even define the term for you!  Here's the history!" This page needs a huge rehaul and part of that rehaul should involve a move, not a deletion. The topic of American imperialism certainly belongs on wikipedia. It should just be written better. Flying Jazz 13:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!  That is not very nice at all.  Attacking my intelligence will not give any additional weight to your views.  In future please stop making statements such as "Ha! I won't even define the term for you!".    I also never said I thought "it's debateable whether the US is imperialistic?"  All I said was that this is covered in other, better written articles such as Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine.  I also stated that it seems this article merely provides an area for persons with anti-american views to express themselves.  Perhaps if this article is to become what I believe you are advocating it should be set up more along the lines of the British Empire article. By the way, if my mistake in not signing my comment above led you to believe that I was another user than I apologise.  Movementarian 04:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, in retrospect I withdraw the my objection.  My sincerest apologies to you.  This article is very well presented and maintained.  I think that the use of the term imperialism, while correct, has an inherently negative connotation.   That said, I cannot think of another term that would work better.  Once again, I apologise for my previous statements. Movementarian 04:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm confused. Without any irony, what would you like to happen? I never meant to insult your intellect. I agree with much of what you said originally. This page shouldn't be here. The same content is presented much better elsewhere. I also think the fact that United States imperialism and American imperialism redirect here is terrible as if those responsible for the redirect were making those not-nice statements. This article should not exist, but an American imperialism article should. Do you really think this article is well presented and maintained? I'm the one who added the needs-to-be-cleaned-up tag to it. What about it do you think is very well presented? Yup. I'm confused.Flying Jazz 06:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to confuse you, I confused myself reading my previous posts.  I was addressing two different things at the same time.  Personally, I would have liked this article to be dismantled and its pieces exported to more relevant articles, such as those I previously mentioned.  I agree that American Imperialism is definitely a subject worthy of an article, but not in this form or under this title.  I think this article would be better served if it started with the ideas and policies of the U.S. at given times in history and explained how they were intrumental in extending it's power and influence.  This is a difficult task to complete without glorifying or condemning the U.S.
Excuse me, but isn't it up to people to judge the value of the word imperialism? Not you. Using a word like imperialism, does not make it POV. I see imperialism as a bad thing, I think the US consistently have continued in it for the last 150-200 years or so, but does that mean that that everyone sees it that way? Im sure some ultra conservative jiongist thinks its awesome to invade countries. 
The simple fact is, the US have had a consistent jiongistic/imperialistic foreign policy for a long time. Specific periods might be excluded. It has expanded it's territory or CONTROLLED territory if you will overseas. Question is in my mind what is expansion? Military bases? If so, then this article is way to weak. If it's military bases and puppet regimes, then WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to weak article. And so on.... 
If you want to argue the issue I'd be happy to provide incitement. 
213.141.89.53 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page here? 

message: I went through and basically copyedited the entire article (overall diff).  There remains a great deal of work to be done before the NPOV tag can come off, but I hope my edits will be viewed as a step (or giant leap!) in the right direction...  Tomertalk 10:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edits, the article reads better now Travb 07:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  massive copyedit 

message: Others argue that there is a difference between expansionism and imperialism. They argue that the American expansion driven by settlers and a need for more land was very different from European imperialism that was primarily a search for raw materials and new markets, with colonization and settlement only an occasional side effect. 
"Others" is a weasel word.  Who exactly?  Please name a historian who feels this way, and please quote him or paraphrase his thoughts. This paragraph becomes a little redundant with Miller's three schools of thought.  The three schools of thought already discuss the viewpoints, reasoning, and justifications that Americans use.
And indeed almost every nation on earth is occupied by invaders who wrested territory from previous inhabitants, so the notion that the US began its existence through the conquest of native tribes can be called a truism, since the conquest of one population by another and subsequent change of government/sovereignty is more often than not the very definition of a new country. Otherwise, it must be noted that the United States is no more "imperialistic" on sole account of its relationship to native peoples than such nations as Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, etc. Therefore, many would argue that while acts of conquest are generally reprehensible, acts of "imperialism" require a more specific and systematic method of exploitation (oppressive and non-mutually-beneficial in nature) and suzerainty over other nations, as opposed to mere territorial acquisition, an argument which likely makes no difference to the people actually losing their sovereignty.
This paragraph is not well written in its current form.
First portion of the paragraph
And indeed almost every nation on earth is occupied by invaders who wrested territory from previous inhabitants, so the notion that the US began its existence through the conquest of native tribes can be called a truism
followed, ironically by another truism:
since the conquest of one population by another and subsequent change of government/sovereignty is more often than not the very definition of a new country.
"more often than not" is not encyclopedic. 
Like the other paragraph, this paragraph becomes a little redundant with Miller's three schools of thought, which is much better written and clearer.  The three schools of thought already discuss the viewpoints, reasoning, and justifications that Americans use.  The author of this difficult to read paragraph would probably fall in the first category: "patriotic American" apologist.
What exactly is this person attempting to say?  I am not quite sure, except he/she is trying to minimize and justify America's actions.  
almost every nation on earth is occupied by invaders who wrested territory from previous inhabitants
i.e. Since every country does it, America's territoral expansion is normal. This is a red herring falacy of logic, common with apologists. A red herring falacy of logic is when someone justifies the actions of a person by highlighting the crimes of someone else.  
This is not encyclopedic, and maybe an example would explain why:
If I were descibing the attrocities of the French in Algeria on a wikipedia article on this war, would I cite Russian attrocities in Afghanistan in this article?  
No.  
Why?  
Because I am talking about French actions in Algeria.  What happened in Afghanistan is irrelevant to the discussion.  Similarly, whether "Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia" is imperialistic is irrelevant to this wikiarticle.  This article is not discussing "Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia".  It is discussing America.
Second portion of paragraph
Therefore, many would argue that while acts of conquest are generally reprehensible, acts of "imperialism" require a more specific and systematic method of exploitation (oppressive and non-mutually-beneficial in nature) and suzerainty over other nations, as opposed to mere territorial acquisition, an argument which likely makes no difference to the people actually losing their sovereignty.
  
"suzerainty" --is a spelling error, I don't know what this is supposed to be.
This sentence appears tacked on to the other sentence, with no smooth transition.
The first portion justifies America's territorial expansion, stating that America is no different than other countries.
The second portion begins with a weasel phrase: "many would argue" and then states to be imperialistic, a country must be more oppresive and less helpful to the natives. This has nothing to do with the first portion of the paragraph. 
Further, what authority is the author citing?  Again, this sentence reaffirms Miller and Thortons argument that the word "Imperialism" cannot be used as a historical term.Travb 09:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions in: Continental expansion

message: "However, the Louisiana Government Bill that followed it, although less well-known, is often cited as an early instance of heavy-handedness and hypocrisy in the early United States."
Who cited it?  This is POV "heavy-handedness and hypocrisy" unless you cite and quote who said it (preferably a historian).Travb 09:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions in: The Louisiana Territory

message: Since most of the population of the territory consisted of non-whites and Catholics, Jefferson felt that the government should suspend its right to self-government until enough white settlers moved west to command a majority. Modern-day critics of this choice point out the irony in the fact that Jefferson, who had decried British denial of American self rule in the Declaration of Independence, was now issuing the orders to deny self-rule in an American territory, issuing commands from half-way across the continent.
Jefferson felt that the government should suspend its right to self-government until enough white settlers moved west to command a majority.
I always cringe when anyone writes how someone felt, especially with no citied source.  What did Jefferson say?  Why not quote him, or add a footnote with a quote that proves that he felt this way.  
Modern-day critics of this choice point out the irony in the fact that Jefferson...
Which "modern day critics"?Travb 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about: The Louisiana Territory

message: Today, there is some question over the nature of the Mexican-American war. Most claim that it was aggressive in nature, prompted by Manifest Destiny. Among these, some historians claim that it was simply a grab for more territory, whereas others see it as part of a concerted expansionist movement, reminiscent of imperialism.
Who is questioning this? Which historians? Who are most of these people that claim the Mexican war was agressive?  Historians? Americans? If this author is talking Americans, this sentence is incorrect, I have been to the Alamo and I see how Americans look upon this portion of history with pride.  The Alamo museum mirrors this feeling, emphasing how ruthless the Mexican government was.
Many weasel phrases in this paragraph....Travb 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions in: The Mexican American War

message: The population was divided between those that saw the economic and strategic benefits of colonies and those that felt it was countrary to America's founding ideology.
This is a misleading sentence.  The majority of Americans were jingoistic and supportive of this war.  When the Maine sunk there was national outrage.  This imaginary division of the population also ignores the other reason that was peddled by the elite for the Spanish-American war: the freedom of these colonies from Spanish control and for humanitarian reasons.  The news had several articles talking about Weyler's attrocities in Cuba. It was the same tired "beacon of freedom and democracy" justification.Travb 10:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions in: Age of imperialism

message: Many argue, however, that this situation amounted to the United States having a de facto empire in the Americas throughout this period.
Many would argue, however, that cultural and economic imperialism of far greater import.
Many of these interventions have been denounced by some as imperialist.
Many argue that this serves to inculcate populations with American values, while at the same time destroying indigenous cultures.
who? more weasel words...Travb 10:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions in: Latin America, After World War II, The Third World, Cultural imperialism

message: than of any insidious U.S. effort to spread its culture abroad, although this expansion is often condemned as such.
"insidous" is POV, condemned by who? Travb 10:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions in:Cultural imperialism

message: It can't possibly be neutral, just look at the section about "evil capitalism." It's no more objective than the communist manifesto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KongminRegent (talk • contribs) .
::I added that section, about "evil capitalist".   Without this section I feel the article would be even more POV--if a person is going to call the US "imperilistic" a person must define what imperialistic is first.  That is what Miller does fabulously.  Miller explains the different ways that Americans see America's historical territorial ambitions, there are three views, that I paraphrased and labeled as the following: 
::*"disneyland" apologists, (which view, like most Americans, you probably believe)
::*lesser apologists (imperialism happened, but only happened during one small period), and 
::*the evil capitailist view.   (which is the view I personally believe)
::The evil capitalist title I added myself, if you find the  evil capitalist title objectable, please add a different title that is just as descriptive and less POV. 
::Please read my statments just above this one  The major weakness of this article which explains why I felt this section was sorely needed.  
::You mention the communist manifesto. This is a common and simplistic way that many Americans typically attach the word "communist" to something they disagree with to make the belief look bad.  I could do the same by dismissing you as a facist, but I won't because this is the most juvenile way of debating.  Your example only inadvertantly exposes your own POV. Your "communist manifesto" example has no merit, so it does not deserve any comment other than this.  Travb 01:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article can't possibly by neutral 

message: For anyone interested, here is some of the info that I have compiled on my blog which may be incorporated in this article or one of the others in the American empire section:
 The American Empire (the bottom section quoting Miller is already part of American empire (term).Travb 04:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More interesting info to add about the American empire

message: I started trying to get this article into shape, but it's probably hopeless. I added the POV warning. Why is this article even here? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 22:13 (UTC)
:I didn't remove your warning, so that's no reason to revert my edits.  However, if you want the warning to stay there, it will need to be more specific.  How does the article reflect a Marxist point of view?  What does it say that's false or irrelevant, or fail to mention that's true and relevant?
:I left in your note in the "cultural imperialism" section that some people think the term is an abuse of the word "imperialism."  I took out only the explanation - which is something that people who are interested can find in the main article, since there's nothing about it that's specific to the U.S.  I removed the popularity of products "reason" from the "background" section because it's totally irrelevant to the time period.  The U.S. is not being accused of cultural imperialism with respect to the Philippines, Cuba, etc.  It's being accused of territorial imperialism.  Therefore unless you have some reason why the popularity of U.S. products might lead the U.S. to invade other countries militarily, that popularity has nothing to do with the rest of the section.
:For the record, although I do believe the U.S. is imperialist, I'm not a fan of the theory of "cultural imperialism."
: Kalkin 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find personally that those who holler POV the loudest, ironically usually have the strongest POV.  As Kalkin said, please explain your tag.  Everyone who criticizes American expansion is not automatically Marxist.  I am not a Marxist, and I criticize American expansionTravb (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Warning 

message: The article is almost entirely written from an anti-American standpoint; all aspects of US growth are treated as the result of unsavory US actions, as opposed to the result of wars, for which, in some cases, other countries were at least partly responsible. Moreover, despite the article's title, the article is about a more controversial topic: expansionism, not expansion.
The  was deleted, so I moved all the info here. Travb (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the page

message: The article is almost entirely written from an anti-American standpoint; all aspects of US growth are treated as the result of unsavory US actions, as opposed to the result of wars, for which, in some cases, other countries were at least partly responsible. Moreover, despite the article's title, the article is about a more controversial topic: expansionism, not expansion.
-Travb- Thanks for retaining the above information. I've added a direct link to this new section. I was going to delete the section you added, but we can just leave it for posterity! (Or you can delete it yourself; I didn't want to do anything you might feel was too "aggressive.") --Cultu<FONT COLOR="FF3333"></FONT>ral Freedom 2006-07-21 14:47 (UTC)
:Why are people so sensitive about using the word "imperialism" in this article and denounce it as anti-American, yet at the same time are eagerly involved in other articels of reprehension on other nations and cultures, and vehemently deny any sentiment. Many people outside the US are aware of American hegemony (resulting from imperialistic foreign policies). If it is considered POV to talk about US imperialism (especially of the US government), then many negative opinions against other countries should also be classified as POV. Otherwise it's just typical American double standards. Let's face it, most of the contentions in the world are more about nationalism and retribution than about who's right and who's wrong. Pseudotriton 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a small point, but why is it simply incorrect? When the British seized Cuba in 1762 that would be described as imperialism without question. But when the US controlled Cuba 1898-1902 and 1906-1909 that is "different"?--Zleitzen 11:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Even Encarta acknowledges American Imperialism in respect to Cuba "A number of factors contributed to the U.S. decision to go to war against Spain. These included the Cuban struggle for independence, American imperialism, and the sinking of the U.S. warship Maine". Whatsmore, the magazine which detailed the Cuban occupation in 1898 was specifically called American Imperialism. --Zleitzen 12:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it appears that the page you quote is a wikipedia type article, which anyone can edit too. Travb (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encarta isn't a wiki, there is an editorial staff. Try editing it and see how far you get. --Zleitzen 14:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I was wrong, sorry. Travb (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh god how I'd like to troll on travb here, we all know his POV as much as we know mine :P Thank god for encyclopedias then? 213.141.89.53 23:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking through the archives I see a comment by one user "imperialism is one of those taboo words that you just can't use if you want people to take you seriously - even when it is entirely appropriate". Your point above concerning people being sensitive about using the word appears to have some validity, Pseudotriton. For starters, imperialism and Empire are not taboo subjects in some nations who continue to celebrate the term. So we can establish that we can use the word to refer to other nations and still be serious. And if one reads the decidedly untaboo Soviet Empire page on wikipedia we find Cuba sitting unchallenged within. Now, remember that Americans began to inhabit the island en masse during the 19th Century before the US government occupied Cuba under military rule for two periods. Yet the Soviets did neither of these things 1961-90. There does appear to be a sense of denial and exceptionalism dominating this issue. Sometimes it's worth finding out what the recipients of such "expansion" believe. Amongst Cubans, there is no doubt whether the US actions were imperialist in nature or not. --Zleitzen 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-American bias of this article

message: There is an awful lot of Imperialism theory being employed here to explain the expansion of the U.S. THe overseas expansion of the U.S. boils down to two events: acquisition of colonies from the Spanish-American War, and the incorporation of Hawaii at the request of a foreign leader. If someone wants to diatribe about american imperialist adventures that did not result in the expansion of teh U.S. I am sure there is anotehr article devoted to it. Perhaps america as empire?Mrdthree 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the Spanish-american War and Hawaii proved to be a turning point in U.S. policy, U.S. interest in overseas territories began much earlier. See Guano Islands Act for a bit more detail (although this area could use more expansion in general). Also, I'm not sure if it was deliberate or simply lost in the shuffle, but The Banana Wars should be linked from somewhere on this page (whether as a main article link or as a see also doesn't matter to me). older ≠ wiser 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TH eGuano Islands Act is a pretty big shocker, brilliant researching, but as far as I could tell there were no colonies as a result of the Banana Wars.Mrdthree 21:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, there were no official colonies, but many of the Banana Republics were essentially puppet states of the U.S. older ≠ wiser 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article seem really about Spanish American War

message: Text is already incorporated, this proposal has already been made above. Mrdthree 13:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[U.S. colonization outside North America]] into current article

message: A wikiuser added a map to this page (first one). Why not add the other pictures in the group? 
thumb|350px|right|U.S. and possessions at the turn of the 20th Century.
The maps were once on American Empire but first one map (Coalition map), and then the other two were removed for the American Empire page.  
Reason: Talk:American_Empire#American_Empire_Map. 
If this map stays, I think a great map would be the map of the Spanish empire, before the Spanish American War, and the U.S. and possessions at the turn of the 20th Century. Basically this map would show that America seized/bought all of the empire of Spain in the Western Hempisphere. 
Another user brought up the point on the American_Empire page that the colonies of Spain made Spain an empire but when the US aquired them, that didn't make the US an empire? What changed? Travb (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I dont think the map is very useful. Compare it with the scanned :Image:GreaterAmericaMap.jpg. On the incorporated map it is pretty much impossible to see anything but the phillipines. I would say chop out or rotate the map to look like the newspaper image or remove it.Mrdthree 16:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I can't see :Image:imperialUS.PNG being very useful. Unless it lists the unnoticable islands, it would be better to simply verbalize this information. As for the other three, they look more interesting. --Swift 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Include other maps?

message: The following text was flagged , then removed today.  
:It is also widely believed that the U.S. was behind the Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 to topple the democratically-elected government of President Hugo Chávez. 
Signed: Travb (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus the US has often been accused of cultural imperialism, a form of expansion overseas certainly more subtle than military conquest but perhaps with similar problems. 
Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Text removed

message: Being that History of United States imperialism currently redirects here, it is extremely disappointing that there is no mention of the new imperial grand strategy, popularised by John Ikenberry and Noam Chomsky. Its absence is conspicuous yet this page may already be too confused to deal with such an addition. On the other hand, I don't really know enough about it to start a new page for it. -- abfackeln 02:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoimperial Grand Strategy 

message: *Support -- not that there's anything to be merged. Let's do this quickly and redirect the other title. --N Shar 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of [[United States imperialism]] 

message: The article is named 'US Overseas Expansion' and should relate only to the literal territorial expansion of the US overseas.  Since everyone seems to think that this article is about American 'imperialism'(however you want to define that word)'overseas'(as if to imply the US has no right to exist where it does), I suggest that we follow the above recommendation and merge the article immediately.  I am not sure how to begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.97.15 (talk • contribs) 
:PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS USING ~~~~ Thank you. 
:Wikipedia:Be Bold I disagree with you, but I look forward to your edits. 
:The name was changed from "imperialism" to "Overseas expansion of the United States" as a coprimise.  I am sure there are a handful of people who disagree that this article is about American imperialism.Travb (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with 71.30.97.15 about how this article (before a merger) should relate to territorial expansion only. To begin with, I'll remove the section on "Cultural Imperialism," which clearly doesn't belong here. --BrianMDelaney 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: should relate only to the literal territorial expansion

message: Declaring overseas interventions of the united states as efforts at expanding the territorial holdings of the United States is editorializing. The fact of overseas expansion as documented in the introduction of this article can be confirmed. The fact fo overseas interventions can be confirmed. The argument that overseas interventions constitute efforts at expansion is opinion.
So I started a new page Overseas interventions of the United States. Mrdthree 13:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not needed, really needed, there is already a List of United States military history events.Ultramarine 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: However, since you have already created the article, there is absolutely no need for the section in this article, so it should be removed.Ultramarine 13:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Now the question is should this article exist? Should information deleted in Jan 2007 about hte overseas expansion of US territory be restored or is it as was argued then redundant with teh main article, territorual expansion of the United states? Personally, I would like to see the info restored, but I am not  strong proponent. I restored it to illustrateMrdthree 13:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the material is unsourced, but at least it is on topic. I say keep it for now, I will go through it.Ultramarine 13:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MOVE OVERSEAS INTERVENTIONS TO NEW ARTICLE

message: The tag is on a cite following this sentence: "After the government of Rahman Arif took power, the U.S. again backed a coup in Iraq, bringing the Baath Party to power in 1968,"  The cited source says:
As I read that, "American agents" marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime, then those agents and others ("the conspirators") staged a coup. Later, speaking of the coup, the author says, "As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, [...]".  Perhaps the text could stand a bit of rewording, but I think that the cited source does support what the text asserts.  The cited source is a bit soft, though -- a NYT Op-Ed piece requoted on a blog. -- Boracay Bill 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Interventions in the Middle East" section {{tl|failed verification}} tag 

message: :I've proposed this page be merged into American Empire, the full details can be found here:  -MichiganCharms 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus there was against, -MichiganCharms 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: Unregistered user 203.218.71.185  had changed the section heading Annexation of Hawaii to read Invasion of Hawaii, providing as an edit summary: "American always says China invaded Tibet, why not saying USA invaded Hawaii?".  User:Ultramarine reverted that with the edit summary: "not a military invasion". 203.218.71.185 re-reverted that without an edit summary, and I re-re-reverted that reversion with an edit summary pointing to this talk page discussion.
IMHO, conducting guerilla warfare is not a good way to resolve ideological differences; especially not within wikipedia. I won't take the trouble to search Wikipedia guidelines about this just now, but I feel confident that the guidelines would bear me out.
I suggest that the Tibet/China questions are better discussed in Talk:South Tibet, Talk:Sino-Indian_War, or Talk:Tibet. -- Boracay Bill 12:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re.revert on section header "Annexation of Hawaii" 

message: I reject the idea to retitle this article as listed above. A better title may be possible but this is not it.
A previous user finds it more objective to retitle this article american overseas empire. However I find this to be editorializing in favor of the 'american empire' notion that has become popular since 9-11. In titling the section American Empire assumptions about the nature of the current governance and administration of regions are being made that rely on ideological definitions of imperialism. Mrdthree 03:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article deals with the turn of the century. There's no post 9-11 assumptions in it, those can be found at American Empire (phrase). -MichiganCharms 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Retitle to American Overseas Empire

message: A map is being added to this article entitled the "American Empire".  I have reverted it again  because as per previous discussions on this page, "American Empire" is not equal to "Overseas expansion of the United States" (that is why two separate articles exist).  Furthermore, there is already a map on the page showing the overseas territories.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not add a more deatalied, newer map on it? I see nothing wrong with that. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article on the overseas expansion of the United States.  Labelling the map the "American Empire" is contentious (see the talk page history) and colouring an area of Canada misleading.  Yes, the US and Britain jointly claimed an area until the US-Canada border was finalised but to colour that on a map on the "overseas expansion" page suggests that the US "expanded into" Canadian territory, which is wrong.  This is an article on history from 1898 onwards.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then I will remove the dark blue coloring. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And please any reference - in the title or in the legend - to the term "American Empire".  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Empire Map 

message: I have removed the FormerPossessions section and moved its former contents here
US has voluntarily left some of its overseas territories and they have gained independence. Cuba (1902), the Philippines (1946), the Panama Canal Zone (1979/1999), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), Marshall Islands (1986), and Palau (1994) are examples.
Firstly, the language "US has voluntarily left ... and they have gained independence" is clumsy. It oversimplifies and distorts.
Secondly:
*Cuba was never a U.S.  territory. It was under U.S. protection between 1898 and 1902 and has been independent since 1902. It came under U.S. protection by virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1898). The U.S. holds a lease on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
*Yes, the U.S. recognized Philippine independence in 1946. For a treatment of that somewhat fuller than "US has voluntarily left", see History of the Philippines (1898-1946).
*The Panama Canal Zone was never a U.S. territory. It was 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.
*The Federated States of Micronesia came under Spanish sovereignty in the 16th century, were sold to Germany in 1899, were conquered by Japan in 1914, were seized by the United States during World War II and administered by the US under United Nations auspices in 1947 as part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Today, FSM is a sovereign, self-governing state in free association with the United States, which is wholly responsible for its defense.
*A German trading company settled on the Marshall Islands in 1885, and they became part of the protectorate of German New Guinea some years later. Japan conquered the islands in World War I, and administered them as a League of Nations mandate. In World War II, the United States invaded and occupied the islands (1944) destroying or isolating the Japanese garrisons. Post WW-II, they were added to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and were administered by the US under United Nations auspices. In 1979, the Government of the Marshall Islands was officially established and the country became self-governing. In 1986 the Compact of Free Association with the United States entered into force, granting the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) its sovereignty. The Compact provided for aid and US defense of the islands in exchange for continued US military use of the missile testing range at Kwajalein Atoll. The independence was formally completed under international law in 1990, when the UN officially ended the Trusteeship status.
*Like the Mariana Islands, the Caroline Islands and the Marshall Islands, Palau was part of the Spanish East Indies, and was administered from the Spanish Philippines until the Spanish-American War of 1898. In 1885, after Germany occupied some of the islands, a dispute was brought to Pope Leo XIII, who made an attempt to legitimize the Spanish claim to the islands (but with economic concessions for Britain and Germany). Spain in 1899, after defeat during the Spanish-American War, sold the islands to Germany in the 1899 German-Spanish Treaty. The Germans began mining bauxite (an aluminum ore), Phosphate, and other resources. The islands were also administered by German New Guinea. Mining continued throughout Micronesia even after the Germans lost the islands to Japan under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, after World War I. The Japanese continued and expanded the mining operations. During World War I, under the terms of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the Empire of Japan declared war on the German Empire and invaded German overseas territories in the Pacific Ocean, including the Palau Islands. Following Germany's defeat, the League of Nations formally awarded Palau to Japan as a Class C League of Nations Mandate. After WWII, the United Nations played a role in deciding the U.S. would administer Palau as part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Eventually, in 1979, Palauans voted against joining the Federated States of Micronesia based on language and cultural differences. After a long period of transition, including the violent deaths of two presidents (Haruo Remeliik in 1985 and Lazarus Salii in 1988), Palau voted to freely associate with the United States in 1994 while opting to retain independence under the Compact of Free Association.
-- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed ''Former Possessions'' section 

message: It's known that Japan was occupied and essentially under American management after that country lost WWII, mostly to the USA. Shouldn't or should this be mentioned in our treatment of "overseas expansion of the USA"? 68.32.48.59 (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No because it was a military occupation, and the USA had no intention of occupying Japan prior to WW2.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would an argument that the U.S. occupation of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico should not be mentioned here because it came about as a result of the Spanish-American War, and that the U.S. had no intention of occupying these countries prior to that war apply in the same way? If so, it seems that this article should show, with cite-supported assertions, that a U.S. intention to occupy those former Spanish territories did exist pre-war. If not, why would the argument apply regarding Japan and not regarding the other countries? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what is more important is that anyone wishing to imply in the article that Japan was an American colony or a US possession in the same vein as the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico should demonstrate that this is the academic consensus.  Attempting to apply logic to this type of question is just a form of original research.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A categorical no. It was a temporary occupation, not permanent expansion of territory. Arjuna (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mention Japan, you would have to mention Germany, Austria and so on. Red4tribe (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we mention [[Occupied Japan]]? 

message: Should the entry for Cuba be shortened?  The statement regarding Guantanemo Naval Base better belongs within that article rather than as a statement within what should be a brief statement. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuba Entry

message: After speaking of the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, bicameral legislature, the Philippine Commission (an appointive body having both U.S. and Filipino members), a popularly elected lower house, the Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) of 1916, and the United States commitment to grant independence to the Philippines, "...as soon as a stable government can be established therein.", the article backed up to 1899 and said, "... the guerrilla fighters soon found that the Americans were not prepared to grant them much more autonomy than Spain had allowed." (, of courthe insurgent Malolos Republic declared war on the U.S. long before Aguinaldo shifted from conventional to guerrilla tactics, of course). There was also a "Thus," which I took as drawing an unwarranted conclusion. 
The problematic bits were unsupported (though not completely untrue, despite the biased presentation). I have boldly eliminated what I saw as the most problematic bits and have rearranged some of the remaining text.  I think this is an improvement. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippines section