Talk:Foreign Policy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreign Policy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ideological leanings

Can someone provide a rough description of FP's ideological leanings? Thanks. Instr 05:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "Its topics include global politics, economics, integration and ideas", so it's a no brainer, must be left leaning. 202.155.245.32 09:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's by no means true. Making such assumptions is not conducive to ensuring validity in WP content. "No brainers" are mostly used by people with no brains :). Does anyone have any actual facts, such as positions or independant and impartial analysis, to actually establish some kind of objective conclusion about efvevefqvefvthe ideological leanings (if any) of FP? Thelastemperor 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Muravchik wrote a defense of neoconservatism for a recent issue. Co-founder Samuel Huntington is also widely read among neoconservatives. That's probably closer to what the magazine is, although I'm sure you could find exceptions.Bjones 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read FP off and on at the office, and in my very humble opinion, the magazine is not necessarily anti-american, but seems to angle much of their material to accentuate shortcomings (both trivial and serious) of the United States and her allies. I definately would not describe FP as an objective or neutral magazine.64.173.240.130 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my (German) knowledge Foreign Policy is more or less the left-leaning counterpart to the more right-wing Foreign Affairs. --Kricket (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related information on FP's views on the Mideast conflict would also be welcome. ADM (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the views presented by FP would best be characterized as 'orthodox' - they reflect the prevailing ideologies of the elite. --147.9.201.86 (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of FP, most of the views expressed are liberal, in the more traditional sense of the word (not to be confused with the American left).

Putting aside the fact that 1) “objectivity” and “neutrality” are subjective concepts, and 2) both left-wingers and right-wingers can be and are critical of the United States and its allies from diametrically opposed perspectives; I would describe FP as reporting views that are within the two dominant ideologies of the American Establishment: neoliberalism and neoconservatism. It should go without saying that none of these ideologies are left-wing. --Loremaster (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy magazine advocates official US policy and "conventional wisdom", which of course is not to be confused with truth. It is not right or left in an american political sense 68.188.25.170 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Ideologies

"Free Money" right now redirects to United States Public Debt. Doesn't make much sense to me. Do you maybe mean Freigeld? --Kricket (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Rivlin argues that government deficit spending is often treated as "free money" while forgetting that it contributes to an unsustainable public debt. --Loremaster (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Dangerous Ideologies section. If this one story is notable then it should have its own article. Putting it here gives undue weight to one story in this publication's entire history. WP should not have an article on every list published by every magazine there is, as easy as these articles are to write. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. I will explain why it is noteworthy before as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - no explanation forthcoming. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again per above The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that "Spreading Democracy" is linked to a wiki page about a book that actually argues the opposite of what Hobsbawn says in his article? Especially since the article itself is available in it's entirety and could be linked to? For example: http://www.eigenauer.com/criticalthinking/SpreadingDemocracy.pdf I am asking before editing in case there is some reason I am missing. 203.2.133.74 (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the book The Case for Democracy, Sharansky and Dermer argue that the primary goal of American foreign policy, as well as that of the free world, should be the expansion of democracy. Hobsbawn counters that this is a dangerous idea. So we are linking to the very book Hobsbawn is critical of. --Loremaster (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ownership and status framing

Would it help frame the journal's position to include "in the Washington Post stable" somewhere in the lede? Onanoff (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onanoff, I would support the idea, if you have WP:RS for the claim. Is the journal owned by the Washington Post?

The most apt comment on ideological classification IMO was by a non-registered user, who called the journal to "represent the elite". I think the journal's service of "nation branding" is one piece of evidence.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreign Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://militaryreporters.org/2010/10/mre-2010-contest-winners-announced/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign Policy. 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:

Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20131107081150/http://www.fp-es.org/ to http://www.fp-es.org/

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) 18:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]