Jump to content

Talk:Foreign relations of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keirnkinnan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

[edit]

This article has been merged into Foreign policy of the United States, and the contents of this talk page have been copied to that page. johnpseudo 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've merged the page histories of the old page that was at the title "Foreign relations of the United States" with the new page that was moved to the same title. All the edits before May 2008 contain the old page history. This page history needs to be kept because there was a merge from the page "Foreign relations of the United States" to foreign policy of the United States. Graham87 09:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strained country section

[edit]

This section must be fixed as there could easily be more countries on there like America and Zimbabwe most certainly do not have good relations I mean America advocated sanctions against them. Eritrea is most certainly another, Serbia doesn't really make sense there today I mean America has a much better relationship with them then they used to. And Burma that is one of America's most strained relationships on earth. All the chavez new left allies like Bolivia and Nicaragua, Ecuador as well have all been strained recently. I could keep going so a clean up is needed asap to the strained section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That list is rather arbitrary. Russia may have tensions with the U.S., but both nations have embassies, trade relations, and other normal ties. 108.125.116.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There's a difference between sound bites and actual relations boys and girls. What is said publically by officials is not what goes on behind closed doors. Yes America and Venezula have difficult relations, by as an oil producing nation they would not want upset the worlds second largest oil consumer too much. Besides relations with Burma have improved and Zimbabwe remains Zimababwe as for the other left wing countries of South America relations remain hot and cold at best. Tra3636 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.244.74 (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miscategorization?

[edit]

Why are Belize, Guyana, and Suriname listed in the Caribbean section? Shouldn't they be in the "Americas" section? 71.184.241.68 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More questions: Why is the Caribbean section separate from the Americas when the Carribbean are a subsection of the Americas. I have resolved this one for now at the section level. Why are some continents, e.g. the Americas, and subcontinents bundled while others, e.g. Eurasia or just Asia, split into many sections. Why is the Middle East listed among the continents and the subcontinents, when, like Latin America, it is an intercontinental region? Why is it confused at least in one case (Azerbaijan) with West Asia but in other cases (Armenia and Georgia) not? In short, the geographic categorization in this article is a huge mess!!!! gidonb (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia - Commonwealth alignment

[edit]

This article and two other related articles(Australia – United States relations and Foreign relations of Australia) make three separate statements about Australia's alignment to the Commonwealth of Nations. This article states: Australia used to be aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations. The Australia-United States relations article states: Australia is also [in addition to the United States of America] aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations... The Foreign relations of Australia article states: ...Australia has traditionally been aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations... A subject should not be interpreted in three conflicting ways in different articles. Australia is a member of the Commonwealth, therefore, how can Australia not be aligned with the Commonwealth? If it is possible for a country to be aligned to the Commonwealth than surely a member of the Commonwealth must be naturally aligned to the Commonwealth. Though, personally, I would refute that a country can be aligned to the Commonwealth as members of the Commonwealth have and are free to pursue completely separate foreign policies. I shall, however, edit statements in these three article relating to alignment between Australia and the Commonwealth to agree; utilising the statement made in the Foreign relations of Australia article as it presents the middle ground. 60.226.81.81 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan

[edit]

Is there any reliable sources about relations between between South Sudan and the United States? All I can find is that the USA officially recognized South Sudan as a sovereign state. -- Luke Talk 17:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential resource

[edit]

Irresponsible Stakeholders? The Difficulty of Integrating Rising Powers by Stewart Patrick Foreign Affairs November/December 2010; excerpt ...

A major strategic challenge for the United States in the coming decades will be integrating emerging powers into international institutions. The dramatic growth of Brazil, China, and India -- and the emergence of middle-tier economies such as Indonesia and Turkey -- is transforming the geopolitical landscape and testing the institutional foundations of the post-World War II liberal order.

99.19.44.155 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

include Major non-NATO ally image?

[edit]
Unites States in green Major Non-NATO ally in orange
Unites States in green Major Non-NATO ally in orange

99.181.141.52 (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The oriental policy of the United States  By Henry Chung

[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=qklJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

problems

[edit]

This is only a "list of countries that have foreign relations with the United States", not a foreign relations of the United States. This become problematic since its article does not meet the title, so when I use link template, the bots wrongly redirect to the wrong page in the other wikis too. I'll move it to another name asap.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates） 07:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Foreign policy of the United States

[edit]

The "Geography" section of Foreign policy of the United States appears to be an incomplete attempt at a more exhaustive version of this article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and  Done

Importance assessments out of wack

[edit]

The importance assessments this article have received are kind of strange, such as how it got Low-importance for WikiProject United States Government. I've done some work to clean it up, but I've pinged to WikiProject United States, WikiProject United States Government, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Politics, the American politics taskforce and WikiProject United States Public Policy to see what they think about the rating they have currently assigned. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compassionate727 The ratings you are referring to were added in 2012 by an IP who was adding the WikiProject United States banner. Please feel free to reassess it to what you believe the importance is currently to be.— Maile (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign relations of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syria does technically have relations with the United States

[edit]

Syria does technically have relations with the United States. Relations were simply suspended in March 2014, but they did not officially end. I have an article which I will attach at the end to prove that. I am not sure how to change the picture with foreign relations with United States, but is there someone that does know that can? Syria should not be in red. I also have an article from the History Channel to prove it. Can someone put Syria back in green? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/18/us-suspends-diplomatic-relations-with-syria.html http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/are-there-countries-the-u-s-doesnt-have-diplomatic-relations-with --Ameet12345 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Foreign relations of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs updated

[edit]

The map needs to be updated to show that the Crimean Peninsula is disputed territory. I would do so but Im not sure how to deal with crediting the original author while also indicating that it has been edited by another individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1106:45D8:DD0A:94B6:84D2:558B (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Non-Independent Territories With No Formal Relations With the United States' section should be deleted

[edit]

This section serves no use on the page – it is completely random list of regions and cities with no apparent explanation for why they should be listed. Why should it be considered noteworthy that Toronto and the Yukon have no have 'independent' relations with the US? Jacobchip (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree & deleted section--it's silly to see most of Canada included as non-recognized! Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States&oldid=1207721724"