Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled List of US actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic, since moved to List of U.S. Cold War power plays, then moved to List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945.

This page is kept as an historic record.

Due to a lack of consensus, the result of the debate was to keep the article.

As with the Soviet list above, this article is inherently POV. It currently reads like anti-US propaganda. In order to become even remotely NPOV, we would need to define for each of the events listed: "alleged" by whom and how trustworthy is the allegation that the listed event even took place? (if it were proven, then we wouldn't have listed so many as "alleged"), who considers this event "imperialistic" and why? who does not (or did not) consider it imperialistic and what were their counter-arguments? etc. I don't see enough value to the potential article to justify the effort of overcoming the inherent POV in the current version. Rossami 15:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I like this article, but it does need some cleanup. I don't think the article itself is intentionally POV, but it might seem to be deliberately POV to someone with diametrically opposite views (in general. I'm not pointing at Rossami here.) And as far as I know, all of these events did indeed take place. Is there any other article on wikipedia that has this information gathered under similar circumstances? Rhymeless 16:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If this article is inherently and uncorrectably POV, shouldn't we be debating History of United States imperialism as well? (The talk page for that, by the way, contains the list.) Grendelkhan 17:02, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
 * Delete. Intentional or not, this article is inherently POV. It can only be fixed by attribution to a verifiable source -- either for the whole list, or for each individual item. Even if all these events are verifiable, it does not answer who considered the actions imperialistic. But apparently not all the items are verifiable, since many are "alleged." Who "alleged"? The sources must be identified and verifiable. Otherwise anyone could add anything to the list, no matter how ridiculous. (e.g., "the US reduced the nationwide speed limit to 55." I'm sure someone will find a way to claim that was imperialistic, especially if their own credibility is not at stake). -Rholton 00:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Awkward title, most unlikely to become encyclopedic. To make it worth keeping we would need to document whose opinions these are, as Rholton quite rightly says. But even then IMO it's likely that we'd want to merge this information into articles on the people concerned and delete this page. Currently there isn't anything to merge, it is pure POV and no information. Andrewa 01:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with History of United States imperialism. It does need a lot of work, but I think it can be rescued by listing sources and removing items if we can't find sources.  jaredwf 06:16, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are many items in this list that are not controversial, but proven facts--Operation Ajax and Operation PBSUCCESS for example. There are also many there that are true, but just don't have articles written for them yet. This list is important as a reference point.--GD 08:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * This article was an extension of History of United States imperialism. So I suggest we rename the article to List of U.S. imperialistic actions.--GD 18:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. who is to do the considering? --Jiang 08:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but either merge with History of United States imperialism or better still rename article to a less POV name, like List of US foreign intervention since 1945. Deus Ex 22:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agreed with Deus Ex. It'd be better to modify and improve this article, rather than delete it. The "considered imperialistic" title is bad. It's also possible to add U.S. actions that e.g. prof. Chomsky calls "very good" for balance, i.e. events where the majority of the population clearly supported the U.S. action, such as liberating France during WWII. --Nimc 09:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Whatever happens here should happen to the soviet one too. -- EmperorBMA|&#35441;&#12377; 06:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, "considered imperialistic" is inherently POV. Maximus Rex 06:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Several times the term "inherently POV" has been used and I must challenge this. This term is not applicable to Wikipedia content. For a word, title, sentence, paragraph or article to be "inherently anything" the relevent charactoristic must be subsumed within the very nature of the object or construct. But when a construct is as fluid and dynamic as a Wikipedia article its nature or essense follows from the ongoing activities that construct it: Wikipedia is an existential world. Inherently POV means that an article has a fixed nature that editing will not fix. But these articles can easily be NPOVed (as we define it at Wikipedia). We define neutral, not in terms of Aristotle's golden mean taking only a middle ground on every issue (these articles would never be neutral in this sense of the word), but rather as a balanced plurality of viewpoints within each article. No Wikipedia article is inherently POV for the simple reason that there is no issue (that I am aware of) to which there is only one point of view. Any Wikipedia article can be NPOVed by adding alternative points of view or challenging the accuracy of the existing POV. If these two articles are POV (which I think everyone agrees they are), then NPOV by adding alternative explanations. Fix, don't destroy. mydogategodshat 10:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I renamed it "List of U.S. Cold War power plays". A less POV title. Kingturtle 05:47, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Your title is not very good. You miss the point of those who criticize US actions who claim that the Cold War was a coverup for more important motives, as this list is supposed to demonstrate (the Pentagon budget that used to be explained in Cold War terms kept increasing in 1990+ by stating other reasons.) Also, the 'power plays' term is not so great. IMHO the title that Deus Ex suggested is neutral and probably best. --Nimc 10:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * How about List of allegedly imperialist US actions since 1945? RadicalSubversiv E 10:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Imperialist is a loaded term, and maybe not that accurate either. Sometimes people use the term neo-imperialism, i.e. "stability" by remote control to get economic domination etc etc. Anyway, what is wrong with List of US foreign interventions since 1945 ? --Nimc 11:47, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The goal of the article is not to list foreign interventions, but to list actions of the U.S. government which critics view as imperialist. This is a perfectly valid topic, assuming it is presented in an NPOV manner. Some of the actions listed aren't foreign interventions per se, and some foreign interventions wouldn't qualify (e.g. no one ever called U.S. involvement in Somalia imperialistic). RadicalSubversiv E 06:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * as far as somalia goes, the US invited the tv networks to broadcast the intervention, their camera lights actually obstructed the marines while they landed, and in the end they killed about as much people as they rescued. if i understood your logic, you claim that e.g. somalia shouldn't be in this list, and therefore the title should contain the word 'imperialist' ?! if so, i disagree with both the premise and the deduction... but anyway we should care more about the content of the article, and not whether the title is too neutral(=sanitized) or not accurate enough for your taste... note that your US apologist friends here want to delete it altogether... --Nimc 08:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to List of U.S.A. foreign interventions since 1945 (for NPOV example), then delete POV redirections List of US actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic and List of U.S. Cold War power plays. Agree that History of United States imperialism title is POV, but that's a different article and a different debate. --Zigger 19:21, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
 * I like the above option Burgundavia 20:24, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge this and the Soviet one into a mega-article on 'Imperialism and the Cold War' and delete the current titles. It'd be good for the title to abstract away from either country in particular. It's v.POV to both at the moment, but the content could be okay with some qualifiers. The intro to such an article could clarify that "some people see strong analogies between imperialism and the cold war conflict" or similar. -- EuroTom 21:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Wake up... the Cold War ended a long time ago... --Nimc 22:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, but if you're combining with the Soviet one, it'd be appropriate for stuff up to 1989. More recent interventions could go under "Recent American interventions" or something. Argueably, the two periods have quite different geopolitics. It'd also help seperate out the more historical aspects of the articles from parts specific to current events. -- EuroTom 13:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it should be sourced. - SimonP 22:57, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If kept, rename to "Things that the US has done, or is thought to have done, that some people didn't like, but which the author didn't have the energy to provide references for".  Kd4ttc 02:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The new name is even worse. Delete now.  This article is completely POV.  RickK 02:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I offered an alternative title suggestion above, but I'd like to formally vote to Keep. The subject matter is inherently encyclopedic; there is a significant stream of political thinking (perhaps best exemplified by Noam Chomsky) which views American foreign policy, particularly post-WWII, as a series of imperialist actions, overt and otherwise; providing a list of such actions is therefore a worthwhile project. Obviously such a list should be presented in an NPOV manner, but that's a case for improving the article, not deleting it. And yes, there should be citations, but those shouldn't be hard to come up with. RadicalSubversiv E 04:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Chomsky is a particularly bad reference for this. He is a fine linquist and his contributions to lingusitics and psychology are important.  His forays out of his field are just that.  Perhaps the list is one that Chomsky has created.  In that case, fold it into the Chomsky article in the section on his political views. Kd4ttc 05:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you or I think Chomsky is component at foreign policy analysis. The point is that a rather considerable number of people do, and his writings and commentary is influential both inside and outside the United States. I see no evidence that the list originates with him, however; I merely cited him as an example of a stream of political thinking which is very concerned with such events, and views them in a certain light. RadicalSubversiv E 06:10, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does matter what we think about this. Wikipedia is not a platform for political views.  It is an encyclopedia.  The problem with the current article is that it is not encyclopedic.  An encyclopedic article would discuss the political thinking behind the list, include information about the strength and weaknesses of the argments, and put it in historical context.  If the article included an essay on the "significant stream of political thinking" it would quality.  But without the discussion of the underlying political thinking it is just a POV rant.  Of course, a factual list would be just the way Chomsky would rant.  That the article would fit well with Chomsky's views is evidence that the article is POV.  If the article were encyclopedic Chomsky would criticise it for having been coopted by the right.  As Radicalsubversiv concludes, the article is consistent with a view "in a certain light", which sounds like a POV article in the first place. Kd4ttc 16:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.