Jump to content

Talk:List of United States foreign interventions since 1945

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nimc (talk | contribs) at 02:14, 26 May 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Talk:List of U.S. Cold War power plays/Delete.

This whole thing is bogus. These are not acts of imperialism. The are just acts. The acts in this list do not meet a definition of imperialism. Better the title should be "Things that the US has done that were not liked by some others, maybe, but gosh we didn't include references". Kd4ttc 02:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The title was changed since the above comment. However, the article is still a tirade. There is no context. The introduction alluding vaguely to unidentified "some people" smells of a POV that should not be on wikepedia. Kd4ttc 16:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This list makes little sense. Not only are most of the entries POV but how is "The 1989 opening of Soviet and East European markets to American goods." an American action? Rmhermen 17:32, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

This is just absurd nonsense. Everything from NAFTA to Hugo Chavez lumped into one tirade. Hell, why not include "alleged US co-operation with aliens to poison the water supply" in it, if we are going to include every kooky conspiracy theory. The only reason this is a list in the first place is because the author obviously thinks it is more damning and "shocking" if all these alleged incidents are presented in one long list. I believe Mr. Michael Moore attempted the same thing in Bowling for Columbine. Can we please get rid of this drivel? user:J.J. 20:41, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • As for Hugo Chavez, you can watch a documentary on what the U.S. helped to do here [1]. What else between NAFTA and that you don't like? btw, following your user link I reached Military history of the United States - thanks... I think we should merge stuff from there into here and into History of United States imperialism ? Nimc 20:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, the military history link was already in this article, I didn't notice. Well then, if anyone needed further proof that anti-American drivel-spreading people are not so bright, as opposed to true patriots like you guys, there you have it. For Kd4ttc: I totally agree that "some circles" and "imperialism" are bad terms to use for the introduction, they were used to try to explain the previous title of the article. I'll give you the honor to write a really cool introduction instead? Nimc 09:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • This drivel was put up for deletion recently (I think the voting ended about 5/18/04) due to it being POV. Kept online. I think it needs editorial comments peppered into the text. The introduction that "have, in some circles, been considered" is classic POV obfuscation. It was kept to give it chance to become encyclopedic. Kd4ttc 22:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC) The VFD discussion is available at List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945/Delete. Kd4ttc 21:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nimc didn't like encyclopedic content in the intro. Perhaps he now sees some of the problems in the current article. Kd4ttc 04:06, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think I made a mistake by not deleting this. -- Cyrius|&#9998 05:27, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree. See below. Kd4ttc 05:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This page was put up for VFD based on it being POV. The introduction was biased in the past. The factual comments now in the introduction are rather straightforward. It now reads as

This is an incomplete list of United States interventions. The criteria for inclusion in the list have not been revealed. The list also does not include any historical context other than date. The strength of allegations is not referenced. Alternatives to any of the actions are not discussed.

The intro was struck as being personal opinion. The standard here is NPOV. The observations are neutral. The list would be more encyclopedic if it had any of the noted defects eliminated. Kd4ttc 05:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the word "list" do you not understand? The criterion is self-evident: "U.S. foreign interventions since 1945" and does not need to be spelled out. The list items do not need historical context other than the date because it is a list. Historical context, strength of allegations, and alternatives to an action belong in sub articles that branch off of the list. Your use of the word "incomplete" is also not needed. If you go to any other "List of" articles they are not described as "incomplete." If there is a list item that is missing, it is added. As I said, the intro you proposed is a personal opinion of the article, which does not belong in the article. I am going to try to find sources for all of the list items, which can eventually be put into individual sub articles if so desired.--GD 20:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a specific MediaWiki tag for incompete lists because they are so common and deserve to be noted. Rmhermen 15:03, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, the list is incomplete because not all foreign actions since 1945 are included. Hmm, the Marshall plan comes to mind. The reason a list is not encyclopedic is because it does not contain any historical context. No reason why, what else could have happened. Anyway, what is the criteria for putting something into the list? Be nice to know. As it is, the choice of what goes into the list makes it a personal statement. Technically, such a thing is known as selection bias, a common mistake made in studies. When the selection criteria is not stated a reader can be very mislead by the result of the process. The reason the intro needed a comment on the poor quality of the list was so a reader would recognize that this list appears to have been created by some political agenda, and is inherently POV. I note you pulled out the comments by others regarding the list previously having been under a title of US Imperialism. That was a personal opinion, too? Kd4ttc 22:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. You haven't graduated college yet. Kd4ttc 22:13, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for putting something into the list ? How about a U.S. foreign intervention that happened after 1945 ? Since you seem to have trouble grasping this for some reason, maybe you could please give us an example for an event that you think that shouldn't be included, i.e. an event that is both obviously important enough to have an encyclopedic article describing it, and is a U.S. foreign intervention that happened after 1945, but still shouldn't be included here ? Nimc 01:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article suggests that is the inclusion criteria, but the content of the list suggests not. There are major omissions such as the Marshall plan and rebuilding of Japan. The content suggests that there is an antiamerican POV. There is still no reference to where the list came from originally, and so many of the entries on the list are noted as alleged. The tone of Nimc's response is insulting. User:GD is still in college, so from him it can be tolerated. Is Nimc an undergraduate, too? Kd4ttc 16:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what exactly is insulting. The people who advocated the use of 'imperialist' criteria don't seem to be around. You should argue with them if they come back - there's no point to keep arguing about the criteria if we all agree about it. In the VFD discussion I said that I think this list should also include positive actions, citing Noam Chomsky. However, we disagree about the Marshall plan - to say that its omission is anti-American sounds very funny to me. As for rebuilding Japan, it's mixed I guess, but maybe you'd like to watch Chalmers Johnson discuss some of it here [2] - I think it'd be nice to add this to the external links. As for the use of the word "alleged", for most of these events we could get rid of it by a little rephrasing, e.g. by saying that 'USA played active role in the events that led to the overthrow of Salvador Allende, and maybe the CIA also supported the coup itself.' Or we could wait some more years and just remove the word "alleged" Nimc 19:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Nimc: Thank you for quieting your tone. The phrase you included above "Since you seem to have trouble grasping this for some reason" is insulting in that it insinuates difficulty in comprehending something simple. I gather you are still an undergraduate. Regarding the article, the criteria for this list are not stated. When the list implied it was a subset of interventions that some circles considered imperialistic the criteria were not clear due to the lack of stating what circles carried that opinion. The article has been heavily criticised and now has undergone a couple of name changes. The current title is a list of foreign interventions since 1945. That is very broad, yet the list is limited. A number of critics of this article have noted that it has an antiamerican POV. I am one of those critics. The list is anti-american because it is heavily loaded with US actions that in retrospect were mistakes. It ignores major historic events. The absence of the Marshall plan is a huge miss. (Of course, when the topic was examplse of imperialism it was another matter). It contains a large number of actions listed as allegations. Changing it to "maybe's" is simply semantics. Is there evidence or not? If the list is to include all US foreign interventions since 1945 it will be a very long list. If the list is not all encompassing then the criteria for deleting minor matters should be stated. Your note above used "we" to describe who disagreed about the Marshall plan. What group do you represent? Editing out the Marshall plan and the rebuilding of Japan after WWII from a list of US foreign interventios reveals a skewed view of what is important in world history. Lastly, some lists can benefit an encyclopedia. A list like this where there are huge issues of context, motivation, and international politics deserves more than just a list. The very presence of this list begs the question of the motivation for having the list present at all. Without an answer to that the article invites criticism for being a POV agenda article. An article should be balanced. There was a short lived introduction that included comments about the articles shortcomings. Where the shortcomings acknowledged the list would be more valid. The person that edited out those comments betrays a view that those observations regarding shortcomings were not correct. Kd4ttc 20:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think that primarily the people and systems that carry out these actions are insulting, and to a lesser extent the U.S. apologists here etc are also a little insulting, though one might argue that they insult their own intelligence. However, I apologize for the way I phrased my earlier reply - It was not my intention to insult anyone, I was trying to be constructive by trying to understand and simplify the issue. About the Marshall plan: I agree that its omission is a huge miss, but I don't agree that its omission is anti-American bias, I'd say that its omission qualifies as pro-American bias... You misrepresented what I said about "alleged" vs "maybe", the point was that documents released so far under FOIA reveal the U.S. support for some of the events that took place, therefore stating this and then adding a "maybe"/"alleged" statement that many people also believe to be true about the actual coup should obviously qualify as foreign intervention to be included in this list. I used "maybe" just because it fit better into the sentence. As for "deleting minor matters should be stated", I don't agree with you: I saw that there's a general debate in wikipedia about whether minor issues should be included, for example there was a poll on whether an article about an ordinary person who died on 9/11 (2001, not 1973 of course) should be deleted. I always believe in trying to simplify whenever it's possible, so other than this general wikipedia debate issue, I don't think there's a special criteria we should use for this list - i.e. if an event deserves to be mentioned in an article, and this event is a U.S intervention, we should add it to this list. As for you characterizing some of these events as "mistakes", it is your personal opinion, that is perhaps shared by many others - However, to give two examples of people who disagree with you: neither George W. Bush nor myself think that he has made any mistakes. Nimc 22:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at this point, then, the list is incomplete and invites further contributions. If there are events that are supported by documentation or other evidence, great. Just that the events in this list do not generally have support of much evidence that I saw after poking around a sampling of the alleged events. You misunderstand the Wikepedia debate about minor issues. The criterion is whether a person is noteworthy or not guides decisions on listing them in Wikipedia on there own. In this article if there is going to be dropping of events (such as was done when the Marshall Plan and Rebuilding of Japan were dropped), then there ought to be a reason why that was done. As far as Anti-american bias, look at the number of citations of CIA support. Mostly alleged actions, many regarding interfeerence in foreign politics. On the face of that it is a bad thing. What is missing is historical context on what motivated the US, after, of course, whether the allegations are even true. Kd4ttc 01:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean about me failing to understand the Wikepedia debate about minor issues. Do you mean that this list should also include events for which there is no Wikipedia article describing them ? If so, why ? If not, then what exactly did I misunderstand, and what is it about the simple criteria that I suggested for inclusion in this list that you disagree with ? I was looking here: Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance. Nimc 02:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_United_States_foreign_interventions_since_1945&oldid=3737848"