Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

 21 KEEPS, 11 Deletes --Nearly a 2 to 1 vote to keep. Travb 04:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was KEEP. mikka (t) 04:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945

 * Delete This may become a controversial nomination. Was nominated before in May 2004 with no consensus.  The article has undergone substantial changes but remains poorly sourced.  I nominate on the grounds that this subject is ill suited to list format.  Its focus inherently excludes most beneficial aspects of United States foreign policy.  From the contentious talk page: "Wise.. you're so naif, yes all US interventions have only one goal: US own wealth... and that's not only true since 1945... that's quite older (at least Gen. Butler sayd that).. you said: "But the United States introduced the world to free elections and democratic constitutions."... please read about the world, FoxNews and CNN are not telling you the truth... US never cares about if ther is or not free elections and constitutions."  I encourage other editors to scan the talk page as well as the article to set this in context.  This article is definitionally skewed to exclude counterexamples to that opinion.  Jimmy Carter's Nobel Prize winning efforts in support of human rights and free elections cannot fit into this list, nor can the many instances of political asylum granted to students from Tienanmen Square and other freedom movements.  I don't mean to whitewash United States history.  Both sides deserve attention.  Only a narrative format can treat the subject fairly. Durova 00:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Important topic. Just because it's a bad article isn't reason for a delete. Work on making it better. Unbehagen 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How can one make it better when most of the facts that would correct the POV problem fall outside the scope of the list? Economic pressure on South Africa to dismantle Apartheid was a process, not an event, and was not a military action. Durova 01:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The title of the article/list doesn't indicate that it's strictly about military action, and foreign intervention can be a process. 23skidoo 04:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought the common definition of "intervention" meant military or espionage action. If that's too narrow then how broad shall we go?  If former United States President Jimmy Carter oversees a free election as a private citizen, is that a foreign intervention?  When private universities in the United States divest their holdings in a country's industries for ethical reasons, is that foreign intervention?  Is humanitarian foreign aid intervention? Do we count private donations as well as governmental ones?   When members of the United States military on foreign deployment perform community service work overseas, is that foreign intervention?  If so, do we confine this to major disasters like the East Asian tsunami or include smaller command sponsored projects?  How about when a United States Navy ship on routine patrol saves the lives of a hundred Ecuadorians?  When the United States grants asylum to one African woman who would otherwise be subject to clitoridectomy, is that a foreign intervention?  Does it become foreign intervention when the number of refugees is greater?  If so, what's the magic number? Durova 05:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Intervention: "To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation."
 * All of Durova examples do not fall within the dictionary term of foreign interventions:
 * President Jimmy Carter, community service work overseas, private donations, East Asian tsunami,United States Navy ship save lives, grants asylum
 * I suggest, if Durova wants to focus on all of the beneficial foreign policy of America, he create a page himself, and then add a "see also" to List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. His list does not fall within the dictionary definition of "Intervention".
 * Even if Durova examples do fall within the dictionary term of foreign interventions, Durova is welcome to use the communication process established by wikipedia, to add this information to this article, including but not limited too mediation then arbitration.  Ask yourself: has Durova or any of those who vote for deletion attempted mediation or arbitration? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Already covered in Foreign relations of the United States. Capitalistroadster 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Items not mentioned in that article include the Bay of Pigs, operation PBSUCCESS, the Afghan-Soviet war, and the US invasion of Afghanistan. This list goes beyond that article and is too long to be merged into it. Gazpacho 10:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Capitalistroadster appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Foreign relations of the United States covers this well and provides context and not just a list.  Jtmichcock 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Jtmichcock appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notwithstanding the nominator's heartfelt argument, I have to vote keep for reasons similar to those of Unbehagen. -- JJay 02:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Some of the inane comments on the page make me feel that Durova may have a point. However, this is a completely empty gesture as it's fairly obvious the page will be kept. -- JJay 18:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a good example of a helpful chronological list. Separate purpose from Foreign relations of the United States. It should be linked from relevant articles. Ashibaka tock 03:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination. This is inherently unsuited to a list format. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This information is already contained in Foreign relations of the United States and History of United States Imperialism.  Movementarian 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Movementarian appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete to reduce redundancy--MONGO 04:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * MONGO appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Unbehagen. 23skidoo 04:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Extraordinarily strong keep - I will probably never vote for a stronger keep in my life. USA is the most hated country in the world, and this is the main reason why they are hated.  Listing all of them and documenting them can provide a rational way to describe it, and hence Americans can be viewed accurately, rather than with irrational hatred. Americans especially should want this to remain. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 05:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you being serious here? -- JJay 06:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The U.S. is the most hated country in the world because everyone has a different reason to hate them. If they do not interfere they are criticised for doing nothing.  If they step in then they are criticised for stepping in.  Like it or not the U.S. will never be able to please the world and that is not likely to change, but that is hardly a reason to keep a redundant list.  Movementarian 06:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding for why US is the most hated country in the world is because it is the most powerful country in the world. At any time in history the most powerful country was also the most hated (except in times when there were 2 or 3 of roughly equal power, in which case they shared the hatred).  I believe that that is the main reason.  Romans were hated during their empire, Russians during theirs (which they shared with USA), Egyptians (just have a look at the bible!), British, French, you name it.  However, the *reasons* differ.  Egyptians were hated for their slave trade, Romans for their orgies, Portugese for their piracy, British for their religious conversion, and so forth.  But let's not forget that USA really are the most hated country in the world.  No other country engenders such hatred.  Are they also the most loved?  I don't know.  We could perhaps do a poll on that one.  Might be.  But its not just Arabs that hate USA.  Something in the order of 90% of the world hates Americans.  Just that Arabs hate them a lot worse than say Canadians. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Romans for their orgies, Portugese for their piracy, British for their religious conversion- yeah, that's it, thanks for illuminating me -- JJay 18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Zordrac your comments are inflamatory, irrational, and illogical and actually hurt the argument you are attempting to vote keep for. If I didn't look at your talk page, I would think this: One type of sock puppet is sometimes referred to as a "straw man sock puppet." They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, in order to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur.
 * Are you a sockpuppet? absolutly not I cannot stress this enough.
 * Is your argument so weak it has the characterisitcs of a "straw man" argument, which "makes that point of view look bad" absolutly. Please Zordrac, your "help" actually hurts, it does not help.Travb 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indifferent keep. Given the votes so far, this will obviously be kept, either by actual consensus or at least by lack of consensus.  And the list seems reasonable enough in annotated with some care.  Mostly I just want to chime in in Zordrac's defense on his above vote (I've had some disagreements with him utterly unrelated to this, so take it as a gesture of good will): his argument about US being hated as most powerful country seems perfectly reasonable, and not dissimulative at all.  I'm not sure that I actually agree with his position, but there's no reason to suppose he's setting up any kind of straw man, or anything else insincere. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Extraordinarily weak keep. I think reducing each event into one line in a list, boiling them down to a soundbyte form, does a disservice to the complexity of international politics. --Agamemnon2 08:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful way to make information accessible. Kappa 09:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but maybe divide up into military ops and covert ops. People who claim that Foreign relations of the United States already covers this, I believe, have not looked at both articles. Gazpacho 09:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Material is not a duplicate of other articles mentioned, and a chronological list is a good way to present many distinct episodes. It has now been divided into military and covert, and there's an 'other interventions' section linking to development aid, intl loans, sanctions, etc.--Squiddy 11:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as Movementarian and MONGO.--Mecanismo | Talk 12:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is certainly an important topic, and not the most difficult one in terms of finding the balance of opinions. Deleting it won't achieve anything. It should be improved instead. Flyboy Will 18:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as above --Petros471 20:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - "poorly sourced" is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. Turnstep 22:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The political motivations of editors are irrelevant as long as the article itself is NPOV. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's an important topic. -- Mihail Vasiliev 22:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - but it needs cleaning up as seems POV.Jcuk 23:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Invalid AfD criteria. Article topic is encyclopedic. &mdash; RJH 21:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The assertion that a list is inherently POV is a legitimate reason for nomination. Durova 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it? I thought that was what the POV tags were for?  Only if it can never stop being POV is it worthy of AFD nomination.  I can't see how this has to be POV. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 15:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The keyword is "inherently". Kappa 22:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV listcruft.Gateman1997 18:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete "since 1945"? List of U.S. foreign interventions should cover all of them.  Grue   15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * SorryGuy appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Details are not nessasary. It is covered eslewhere. SorryGuy 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * SorryGuy appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep we have worse articles--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Extraordinarily strong keep Durova, who initiated this recent deletion, states the following five reasons for deleting the article:
 * FIRST:"The article has undergone substantial changes but remains poorly sourced"
 * SECOND: "Its focus inherently excludes most beneficial aspects of United States foreign policy...This article is definitionally skewed to exclude counterexamples to that opinion."
 * THIRD: "Only a narrative format can treat the subject fairly."
 * FOURTH: "Jimmy Carter's Nobel Prize winning efforts...instances of political asylum granted to students from Tienanmen Square and other freedom movements...cannot fit into this list"
 * FIFTH: "I nominate on the grounds that this subject is ill suited to list format." (Same argument as User:Tom harrison)
 * These five arguments for deletion can all be satisfied without deleting the article. Through editing and communication, all five arguments can be resolved.  If communication fails, then as a last resort, mediation then arbitration can be attempted.  Ask yourself: has Durova or any of those who vote for deletion attempted mediation or arbitration? Deletion should always be a last resort, not a first one.Travb 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. factual article. notable and verifiable topic. mikka (t) 06:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep who'd have thought it - me voting keep on a list? But yes, this list has definite merit.  It is noe of the few I have come across which is, in and of itself, encyclopaedic.  I'd like to see a bit more context, but actually it is not bad as it stands.  The nomination is not without merit, but I believe the criticisms can be fixed.  In the end this provides context to a situation whch baffles many Americans of my acquiaintance: with all the good work the US does, why is it not more popular?  This list provides a good answer. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - WAS 4.250 00:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.