Talk:Non-interventionism

untitled
I wrote a reasonable definition of non-interventionism which did not confuse it with isolationism. I put in some explanatory quotes, too. Hogeye 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalin a non-interventionist????
That's patently absurd; Stalin intended to rule the world and supported guerilla communist efforts across the oceans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.69.147 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and merge...
I didn't realize there was already a non-interventionism page. It didn't show up when I searched. By all means, please do go ahead with the merge. Since the word "noninterventionism" appears in the dictionary, but "non-interventionism" does not, I would suggest that the non-interventionism page should be the one that points to the other page.MarcMontoni 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the merger. However Non-inventionism is the logic logical title as the man main non-intervention articles are called that, WITH A HYPHEN.Roger 10:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad Merge
This article was the earlier one created, was the larger article, and has the longest fullest edit history. The proper way to handle this is to merge the other article into this one, and then get an Admin to assist with a page move to the other name if it is preferred. Since I created this article int he first place, I will do the merge properly. If the naming without a hyphen is desireable, then get an Admin to delete the other page and do a page move of this one to the other title. This way the proper history can be maintained. Hu 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Washington, Jefferson... Ron Paul?
Why are any American Presidents mentioned in the introduction to an international article and more importantly why is a US congressman listen in succession with me. I think it comes into conflict with WP:NPOV and maybe WP:SOAP. I think it should be removed.--Chadamir 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How funny. I noticed that immediately and was about to remove it. But let the third person who writes here remove it. Htmlqawsedrftg (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I took it out. I also change "favor" to "favored", because Washington and Jefferson, to the bext of my knowledge, no longer favor anything. I actually think that Ron Paul ought to be in the article, just not shoehorned in with Washington and Jefferson. Perhaps something to the effect of "Current American politicians who favor non-interventionism include...", with Ron Paul included with other current politicians.--RLent (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the political philosophy of non-interventionism?
This article seems to be nothing more than a series of links to examples - where is the theory? Maybe some extracts from seminal works such as RJ Vincent's Nonintervention and International Order, moral support for nonintervention, its relation to the realist school of internation theory? Tresdessert (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonintervention in the United States: Non-factual/non-NPOV statement
This example of a non-neutral and non-factual statement appears in the United States sub-section of Nonintervention by country.


 * both Neoconservatives and New Democrats favor military interventionism in foreign policy, as a means to preserve America's superpower status.

The boldface portion is what I am disputing. While it is true that some of those who favor interventionism may very well do so because they want to "preserve American's superpower status" (and are often accused of such), even if they don't outright say it, that's hardly universal, as this implies. Some favor intervention for humanitarian reasons. Whether that's a good reason for intervening or not will not be argued here, but the statement is factually wrong and, as a result, non-neutral. Someone who favors military intervention in case of—just as an example—genocide would likely feel insulted if someone were to say that his real motivation was merely to preserve America's dominance. I'm removing that statement. TaintedMustard (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Also See / Popular Culture
There's no page on wikipedia, but Seerow's Kindness from animorphs is also a non-interventionist perspective. Maybe it could be mentioned with star trek's Prime Directive? I don't think the two are enough to justify a popular culture section, but if some one know about some more it'd be an interesting section. Tristyn (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Messy definition
The confusion between the policy of non-interventionism ('avoid alliances') and the principle of non-intervention ('don't interfere in things happening in another sovereign's territory without being asked') is troubling to say the least. They need disentangling, as while I'm not as familiar with the policy, I know that it, as defined, is not the same as the principle. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't 'avoid alliances' be political isolationism, not non-interventionism? Tristyn&#x2318; 00:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @: It should be, but the first line of United States non-interventionism defines non-interventionism as "the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense". This may be an issue more with that article than this, but the contradiction (or difference) would be best resolved (or clarified). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Importance of non-interventionist countries
I notice from Foreign relations of Switzerland that "Switzerland is one of the two countries alongside the Kingdom of Sweden representing the Republic of Korea (South Korea)'s interests at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)"; this is expanded on in Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, but no mention is in either article as being because both Switzerland and Sweden are formally non-interventionist (only that the UNC chose the two as two from those "nations whose combat forces did not participate in the hostilities in Korea"). If there are any further sources specifically on the use of non-interventionist countries in mediation, I think it would be a good addition to the article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)