Talk:Timeline of United States diplomatic history

message: The timeline has to emphasize the major issues and now it does a poor job. Many major issues are missed (Embargo for example, start of war of 1812, diplomacy with Mexico, dispute re Oregon, war with Mexico. etc etc
Note that except for one entry it ends in 1963-- showing it was taken from some long-forgotten book or whatever. The original article is unsourced so it has no credibility. I will start fixing it with the major events but that will take w while. Rjensen 13:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I found the source from which the article was copied. http://www.faqt.org/Qhoo/United_States_Treaties.html
dated 2000 (pre-Wiki). David Levinson used to copy a lot of lists, and this one ended in 1963....no authoritative source given. SInce it was made before Levinson was born he got it from some mysterious source. He's Professor of Transportation Economics, Engineering, and Planning at U Minnesota http://www.ce.umn.edu/~levinson/ Rjensen 13:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact David Levinson created the list sometime in 1986 or so from what he thought were important events listed in the Almanac of American History (ed. Schlesinger) and other sources. There is no evidence the list was created before he was born, rather that what would be important in the 1960s - present was not as clear as what was important prior to the 1960s. dml 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Rjenson, you removed edits I made on the basis that they had footnotes. And that this article doesn't use footnotes. What policy are you quoting?-- Zleitzen(talk) 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy on this timeline is to have links to articles which have full citations. Otherwise we would have multiple citations for every entry--thousands! Please also avoid POV language; the timeline will not work with that. Rjensen 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commentary that such and such a country is or is not democratic/ dictatorship etc is POV and can't be allowed. No original research allowed either (which I think is what the footnotes were intended to convey). Our goal here is to have a very long list of short items (one or two sentences) that is cross referenced into other articles. The Opera article notes are to two general non-POV reference books (Viking and Gove). We have a short list of ref books in this article too, but I don't see much point in putting in footnotes to them. Most of the events we have are discussed in most of the textbooks and reference books listed. Rjensen 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No footnotes

message: ====Footnotes====
*Should this article have inline citations and footnotes? Or should they be removed?
This article does not reference ANY Native American Treaty whatsoever! Are they not RELEVANT?
====References====
*Is the US National Archive a "POV" source that would need to be removed?
*Is Eisenhower and Castro: US-Cuban Relations 1958-60 a "POV" source that would need to be removed .
*Is "Green Light-Red Light: Henry Kissinger's Two-Track Approach to Human Rights During the 'Condor Years' in Chile and Argentina a "POV" source that should not be used on an article .
*Are details that use these sources as a reference original research?
====Content====
*Should this article mention the United States embargo against Cuba?
*Should this article mention Operation Condor?
*Should this article mention Operation PBFORTUNE and the attempted overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in 1952?
My belief is that (1) of course this article should have inline citations and footnotes. See featured timeline Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. (2) All the references are acceptable, meeting WP:V and WP:RS, and ofcourse it isn't original research to quote from them. (3) The content is all relevant to this article.-- Zleitzen(talk) 07:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rfc

message: *Should this article mention the United States embargo against Cuba?
*Should this article mention Operation Condor?
*Should this article mention Operation PBFORTUNE and the attempted overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in 1952?
My belief is that (1) of course this article should have inline citations and footnotes. See featured timeline Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. (2) All the references are acceptable, meeting WP:V and WP:RS, and ofcourse it isn't original research to quote from them. (3) The content is all relevant to this article.-- Zleitzen(talk) 07:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: *re 1952: we usually skip things that did not happen
*re 1954 false, POV and unbalanced. Does not explain US motivations or what the US did (set up loud speakers)
* re 1960. unbalanced POV. fails to explain US motivations
*re 1961 cutting aid too is minor for inclusion; misleads users re embargol cutting diplomatic relations was more impt and should be mentioned;
*re 1975-83, falsely suggests this was American program. This article does not cover the diplomatic operations of the many other countries in the world. This stuff was entered only because of one-sided POV. Wiki editors can do a lot better. Rjensen 08:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but these responses do not wash. Just writing "we don't do this", "unbalanced POV" and saying that the US embargo against Cuba is too minor for inclusion is not good enough. Adding that these well documented and important events were only "entered only because of one-sided POV" is not worthy of further comment. Every serious academic analysis of US diplomatic history 1950-1980 will include these episodes. So should and will this article.-- Zleitzen(talk) 08:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question I guess is whether Zleitzen is committed to writing NPOV entries that show the multiple sides of contentious issues. I hope so, for then he could be a valuable editor. Rjensen 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, you've removed the footnote references yet again - I believe that is the 4th time you have done this. In light of this extraordinary behaviour, I think your enquiries as to the value of other editors is unwise. My edits, which come from an academic base, an extensive knowledge of the subject matter and are cited to academic/reliable sources, stand on their merits - yours which are not cited to anything at all and break basic WP:ATT policy stand on their merits.-- Zleitzen(talk) 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: the problem with Zleitzen's approach is that he shows no interest in having a NPOV article in this highly contentious field. he seems to have an agenda contrary to the NPOV rules. That is unfortunate. Rjensen 11:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, claiming that I have "no interest in having a NPOV" article and that I have "an agenda" is not very interesting and does nothing to help your cause. How about keeping to the basic tenets of WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:V and sourcing your edits. How about you stop removing footnotes and sourced material and how about you stop adding more unsourced material. That would be more productive than repeating daft straw man theories about my motives above.-- Zleitzen(talk) 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps Zleitzen will declare that he supports the Wiki goal of NPOV. Rjensen 12:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My editing record speaks for itself, Rjensen. I always cite established verifiable sources, usually know what I'm talking about, and help write good or featured articles for wikipedia, which by their nature have to be NPOV. This article cites no sources, is a very poor article and is at present being guarded by an editor who is removing basic sourced facts and refusing to accept wikipedia policy. Either your methods of removing sourced information is supporting wikipedia - or my methods of adding sourced information is supporting wikipedia. Which is it I wonder? I return to my original theme on this page. Should the facts on this article be established and cited to reputable sources? Or should you be allowed to add unsourced material or remove material based on your whims? -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Maximilian Affair is listed as lasting from 1864-65 but the link provided to the wiki (stub) for the same event says that it lasted until '67. I assume it is an interpretation issue as to what constituted the end so, what do we decide? Benito Juárez's death or some other point? 76.30.159.238 (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximilian Affair 

message: How come the Treaty of Watertown is not included. --Drgs100 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Watertown