This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is a CHUNK of the getting-too-huge article Foreign policy of the United States. Numerous editors on the talk pages of the FP of the US article have advocated for six months and more to break the article into smaller articles. It's having trouble loading quickly. This is the third major spinoff. Here's the overall structure:-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Foreign policy of the United States <---MAIN article

History of U.S. foreign policy <---spinoff article

Criticism of U.S. foreign policy <--- another spinoff article

History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily <--- this article

I didn't write this particular article. I copyedited it. Still, I think there are serious POV concerns with it for this reason: it appears slanted against the U.S.; even the title presumes something wrong; so I added the WP:NPOV tag. Basically, most of the text in this article is talking negatively about U.S. interventions, failures, pushing democracy and having it backfire, etc etc. I think the U.S. record, while checkered, has many positive things which are not reflected here; the balance of the text addresses negative concerns. I think the topic is more fairly addressed in the article and subsection Criticism of U.S. foreign policy which I wrote, which I think has a fairer treatment of both sides, of course, since everything I do is totally perfect. I'm joking. I strive for WP:NPOV.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Whatever happened to the No Point of View Policy?? 123Mike456Winston789 ( talk) 20:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

What do you mean? Remember, I didn't write this; I copyedited it; and I'm the one that put the tag on.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Do you mean the WP:NPOV?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I think the WP:NPOV issue with this article stems most strongly from the title, which by its nature states that the United States DOES "export democracy militarily." This is a serious problem but one that can be fixed with a title change. The article's content could probably use a bit of tone-neutralizing but it's not nearly as egregious as the title, which I think is pretty clearly (if inadvertently, I suspect) pushing a POV. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 08:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Maybe 123Mike456Winston789 ( talk) is hinting about changing the #redirect to the " Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse" article instead of the " Foreign policy of the United States" one... what do you think Tomwsulcer ( talk)?   M aurice   Carbonaro  11:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply