Talk:List of United States foreign interventions since 1945/Archive 1

message: Okay, this is getting bogged down in a lot of back and forth now. As I see it, this page is still useless. 
If you want to write about America in Japan, or Europe or whatever, do it on the Japan History or Marshall Plan pages. If you want to talk about America killing Salvador Allende, or whatever you believe, do it on his page. This list is pointless. It is convuluted, inconsistant ("support" for a foreign leader is counted as "intervention"? Huh?) and obviously biased. Like I said before, making one of these long, "damning" lists is a common technique of those on the political left, who enjoy reciting long lists of US "attrocities" for their shock value, but are disinterested in any serious analysis of the events themselves. I'm not trying to insert my own bias in this, but it's just a fact. If someone had made a page called something like "abortions performed in America since 1973" or whatever, it would be equally stupid. 
Lists are by definition supposed to be groupings of similar things. We have many fine lists on wikipedia, such as list of famous gay people, where an obvious group of similar things is being catagorized. There is nothing being catagorized on this list other than "Republican foreign policy decisions (either real or imagined) that Noam Chomsky and his crew don't like." Get rid of this page, it's not improving, and frankly I can't imagine how it ever could be. America is a big country, and the term "intervention" is way too broad, and the "since 1945" period way too vast. user:J.J.
::::: <FONT color="blue"> I agree with JJ.  The essential problem with this list is selection bias.  I put the events of the Marshall Plan and Rebuilding of Japan on the list when it was renamed to the neutral title now present.  Those edits were quickly dropped by others.  Another user edited out an alternative view on Chile, one which had the ring of truth in that it presented a reasonable string of events clearly enough stated that with some digging could be referenced.  The deeper problem of selection bias is still present.  If you want to show that Ford makes green cars, then show a number of photos of green cars you will just have shown that you can identify green cars.  If you want to argue the US does things you don't like, then show a list of things you don't like, then you have shown you can pick a list of things you don't like about the US.  The reading I have been doing around the web is showing that for the few events I have looked at the allegations here are a strained reading of history.  I think this article is headed toward deletion. Kd4ttc 00:53, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The year 1945 is not arbitrary, it is the year when the U.S. emerged as a global superpower. This list is linked in the history of U.S. imperialism article in order to complement that article, since listing all of these events there would be too long. If you think the list is biased, be our guest and find events that you and your crew consider to be good and list them here. If you think that in order to do that you'd need to change the title of this list, personally I'm happy to suggestions - though this title seemed to be the most neutral to me. As for "intervene" vs. "support", you don't think that providing support for coups qualifies as intervening? If there are imaginary events in the list, please tell us about them. And why did you use the word "Republican" is beyond me... Nimc 22:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

text: J.J., no one here is writing about "America in Japan" or "America killing Salvador Allende." As you said, that discussion should be reserved for other pages. This is simply a list of such interventions. I agree that this list still has some problems, but that is not valid argument for deleting it. We need to improve upon it. We need to discuss what kind of "support" should be considered an intervention. Military (overt and covert) support? Financial support? Moral support? This has nothing to do with "Republican foreign policy decisions." If you at all followed the writings of Chomsky and "his crew," you'd realize he is just as critical of Democratic Presidents. --GD 22:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Would I be correct to assume that you don't hate everyone and everything? Nimc 11:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  <FONT color="blue"> The references for the reforms in Iran are in the Wikipedia article about the Shah.  Click on the Shah's name in the article, I set it up for convenient access to the article.  As to the Chile link, it is only 4 characters displayed on the screen and presents an alternative viewpoint which is clearly enough stated to allow followup analysis.  Some the preceeding links were to articles where I didn't even find the Chile content.  I left them intact out of respect for the Anti-american viewpoint.  Seems if someone marched along all those references they should be able to see the obvious falseness of the viewpoint in the link I inserted.  Unless folks here think we shouldn't respect the intelligence of the readership.  Kd4ttc 00:53, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

text:  Since when not supporting the coup against Chile is anti-American ? I didn't see land reforms mentioned in the Shah article ? Nimc 01:34, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I hadn't really been following the discussion that closely; I've been busy with other things. I totally agree that the source links should be temporary. They should be moved to new articles as they are started. The Chile link I removed was nothing but baseless, un-sourced, apologetics. I think any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion when comparing it with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. --GD 04:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't see that article before. I agree with you that the external links should be deleted. --GD 04:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you put all these external links here, I guess it'd be better that you remove them, in case you want to keep notes etc. As for the extra comments next to events, there still seems to be a certain disconnect between the lists on wikipedia and Kd4tcc's opinion on what a list is. Nimc 11:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This list is de facto discrimination (Part 7: Continued Argument between Kd4ttc and Nimc)

message: Should we really add U.S. interventions that were sponsored by the UN? --Cantus 19:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely - otherwise the article will only show the more negative aspects of US foreign policy. The UN isn't a country, so they are still interventions by US, just not unilateral ones. -- EuroTom 06:23, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: UN

message: Why is the support for Salazar's Portugal merely "alleged"?  Surely, the US (along with other countries) formed the NATO pact with Portugal.  If a mutual defence alliance isn't support, I don't know what is! -- 19:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Portugal

message: As he does in countless other articles, VeryVerily has been reverting changes wholesale, including additions of references that corroborate the US interventions reported here. Please revert his irresponsible reversions. Shorne 20:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The World Socialist Web Site is not a source for anything. VeryVerily 23:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help to preserve the facts 

message: We cannot allow the whitewashing of documented interventions as merely "alleged". Please do not yield to VeryVerily's POV-pushing antics. Shorne 20:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're talking about, since Shorne seems to be reverting everything I do, and I've only been reverting his edits, which are obvious rubbish.  If I missed a minor mechanical fix or two (and the ndash is not clearly better), they can be readded in due course.  The content is far more important. VeryVerily 00:00, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: who decides what is "rubish" jingoist? You want to talk about POV, you embody the word Travb 05:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Alleged"

message: Once again, it is entirely inappropriate and POV to say that US interventions are "alleged" when they are well documented and in some cases even admitted by the US government. I have defended all of my changes on this page, but I still have not heard what VeryVerily's disagreement is.
This is a formal call for VeryVerily to discuss his disputes here before editing the article any further. Shorne 05:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I made comments above.  You have not defended your changes at all, which are obvious POV in clear non-compliance with Wikipedia policy. VeryVerily 09:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. Also note that repeatedly disobeying ArbCom orders will result in longer-term blocks. --mav 02:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This should have been mentioned on the page that discusses the "temporary" injunction. Shorne 23:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Shorne appears to be ignoring this advice, and adding his obvious POV back. VeryVerily 23:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't discuss anything, so I restored them. Shorne 23:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged" again 

message: is pretty broad. We supported Francoist Spain in the Cold War, for example. But economic and diplomatic relations =/= intervening a la Iran 1953 or Guatemala 1954. Trey Stone 09:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Support"

message: I'm removing the reference to this election.  I can only find two concrete things that the US did during the elections. 1) Lou Harris, a campaign advisor for JFK, worked for Canadian Liberal Party. I don't see where this is any different than Dick Morris recently hired by the United Kingdom Independence Party. 2) US officials critized Diefenbaker's nuclear position. I don't see where this is any different than the Iraq invasion criticism from Annan, Chirac, Schröder and numerous other foreign head of states and high officials.
I doubt anyone would serious label what Morris did as a foreign intervention.  Are the positions of Annan, Chirac and Schröder considered foreign intervention on the US election? If not, I doubt that the two things I cited are considered intervention in the Canadian election.
If someone can state why it's on the list, please speak up.  But it seems to be one of several things just thrown up on the list without an exclamation.Lokifer 12:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1963 Canadian election

message: I've been unable to find any link to the events described happening in Palau to the CIA.  Haruo Remeliik's assassination is listed as unsolved, as are the bombings.  As much as conspiracy theorists link the CIA to all unsolved political events in post-WWII, this isn't what I consider proof that the CIA was involved.  Thus, I see no evidence pointing to or away from the CIA, just speculation.  Since I have been unable to find any evidence one way or the other, I am removing its mention in the article.  If someone can cite evidence that shows some sort of involvement, please speak up.  If not, I don't think it should stay off of the list.Lokifer 23:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Palau

message: Is there any evidence for "Alleged support for Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, 1980s?"
As far as the BDP dispute is concerned, I suggest you read . The US government was intimately tied to the BDP because of its open-door economic policies, ties with diamond mining interests, and opposition to a "communist" BNF. --Sesel 20:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Romania

message: Should we include pure peacekeeping operations here, for example under UN auspices? I'm not thinking here of Korea, but I'm presuming that at some time the US has sent troops abroad under a UN banner. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacekeeping

message: Why list regular military interventions at all? Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad is more complete than this article can or should be. Gazpacho 21:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regular interventions

message: This list continues to be put up for deletion, but no one on this topic, except for one wikipedian above, has suggested merging the article, with a less lightning rod topic.  
*Why do some users continue to want to delete factual, historical information, when they can simply edit the page instead? 
If a user feels an article is POV, delete the sections that are POV, or better yet, add information which makes the argument less POV.  It is much harder to create something, than destroy. Why are some users determined to destory this article, instead of create more balanced information? Travb 01:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?