Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States (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.

The result was delete. The delete arguments appear well evidenced and certainly moreso than tye keep arguments that appear to reflect assertion rpor personal opinion rather than detailed analysis of the content Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. As with List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia, which is currently up for deletion, this "list" is inherently subjective and constitutes WP:SYNTH. One might argue that Soviet attempts to export the revolution are a notable topic, or that controversial episodes in U.S. foreign relations—from United States intervention in Chile to United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war—are notable topics, but Wikipedians cannot create their own list of such incidents without violating WP:NOR. At best, we could host or aggregate lists compiled by secondary sources, if any existed, but this "list" in its current form is essentially unsalvageable (even if some of the prose is not, and even if some of the sources might be useful elsewhere).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep it is not WP:SYNTH because no new proposition is presented--the editors did NOT invent or change the concept of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States -- there are over 5000 scholarly articles and books published in 2017 alone that discuss that concept according to google scholar at  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2017&q=%22+authoritarian+regimes%22+supported+by+the+United+States&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27.  It is not WP:OR because every instance is fully cited to RS.  As for "subjective" that is not a Wiki criterion--our criteria is verifiability from reliable sources and this list meets that criterion. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "It is not WP:OR because every instance is fully cited to RS." Frankly, did you look at the article before commenting? The very first example given in Wikipedia's "List" is Azerbaijan, from "1991–present," as sourced to the Consulate General of Azerbaijan (which gives a generic PR presentation about how "A strong partnership with the United States plays a major role in Azerbaijan's foreign policy. This has held true ever since the U.S. recognized Azerbaijan's independence on December 25, 1991 ...") and Freedom House (not necessarily a universal arbiter of "freedom"!) which ranked Azerbaijan "Not Free" in 2015. That content is a blatant misuse of primary sources and the very textbook definition of WP:SYNTH. Do you need me to go on? Because the whole "List" is like that!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's go on down the "List." "Bahrain 1971–present" is sourced to one article on U.S. arms sales to the country and a non-functioning link to Human Rights Watch, with no indication how the time period was decided; "Brunei 1984–present" is sourced to the State Department and Freedom House, as well as a Guardian article on the country's Sharia court system (which is not necessarily synonymous with "authoritarian regime"); "Cambodia 1998–present" is unsourced, as the cited source tells us only that Hun Sen expressed support for Trump. To repeat: This "List" is totally WP:INDISCRIMINATE and necessarily compares things that are not alike. Even if the prose is acceptable, the "List" is absolutely unacceptable for the same reasons List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia is unacceptable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're complaining about footnotes that need improving? Your intensely biased against the whole concept I suspect and that undermines your commitment to NPOV .  Back to Azerbaijan you can easily improve the footnote by a simple google search to get  Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * and the Bahrain RS works -- "US resumes arms sales to Bahrain....security forces there violently suppressed protests calling for reform in a crackdown that has killed more than 50 people....[US official says] 'We’ve made this decision mindful of the fact that there remain a number of serious unresolved human rights issues in Bahrain.'" Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But the source doesn't say that there has been "support" from "1971–present," nor that Bahrain is an "authoritarian regime" (lots of countries have "unresolved human rights issues"—including the U.S.!), nor that the U.S. arms sales are comparable to the other cases on Wikipedia's list. In fact, it says the U.S. policy is a flawed attempt at encouraging political liberalization in Bahrain: "The resumption of US arms sales to Bahrain came after the kingdom’s crown prince, Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, completed a week-long visit to the US, where he met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Since the uprising, the prince, who has been open to dialogue and limited reform, has been marginalized by more hard-line members of the royal family, including the prime minister and defense minister. Some saw the arms deal as a US attempt to boost the prince's position within the royal family to increase the possibility of a political solution. But that strategy failed when the US attempted it last year, and is still flawed now, says Justin Gengler, a Doha-based Bahrain analyst who writes the blog Religion and Politics in Bahrain."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We all agree the US tried and failed to moderate a Bahrain regime that massacred its reformers. I think systematically repressing & massacring reformers is a pretty good sign of authoritarian--or is that too "subjective" for you. As for other views look at Nicholas Kristof saying the US for years turned "a blind eye to torture in repression” in Bahrain so long as U.S. economic interests (like maintaining an uninterrupted oil supply) were protected. In part this was because the United States feared that the 'democratic rabble' might turn against it." Freedom House is excellent on lack-of-freedom issues and it's pretty clear on Bahrain's bad record.   Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, Freedom House 2018 says Brunei is "not free" https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/brunei ; likewise Cambodia  https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/Cambodia  Here's an excellent reliable source that should satisfy NPOV editors.  There's a very useful table here at [] Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is currently a similar AfD, Articles for deletion/List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia. After looking at both pages, I think they both should be kept. Yes, as follows from the list, the United States has supported (and continue to support) a number of authoritarian regimes. So what? This is just a matter of fact and supported by numerous RS telling that such and such governments are "authoritarian", and they have been supported by the US. This is not WP:OR and no different from any other lists with certain criteria for inclusion. There are no policy-based reasons for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as RS tell about US supporting a country with authoritarian government (per Democracy Index), this is not WP:OR. For example, one could include North Korea in the list per sources like that. And BTW, supporting countries with authoritarian governments is not necessarily a "bad thing". The US administrations who did it had their reasons. No, they did not do it just for the sake of supporting non-democratic regimes in the world, and the list does not claim it. But the fact that they supported a large number of authoritarian regimes (despite the claim to support democracy in the world) is notable and therefore deserves a list. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wiki has a list of 14 possible reasons for article deletion at Deletion policy None of the 14 rules fit this article--the closest is: "#7 Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"  But that has not happened--thorough attempts have largely succeeded.  Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete although it avoids the category mistake error found in the Russian/Soviet Union article, the article is on the same weak legs as the other one, and when this article was shown on the other AFD page I was unconvinced about how this should be treated differently. As for 's point, there is maybe room for discussing support that the United States has given to authoritarian regimes, however it is not appropriate in a list format, rather it requires discussion and elucidation. ! dave  23:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete "tendentious original research" is the right of it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as Original Research. For Rjensen's benefit, that's the sixth reason on the non-exhaustive ("include but not limited to") list in the deletion policy cited. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OR is not a deletion criteria--#6 says ''Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources."  No one here has argued that extreme position.   "OR" is a technical term in Wiki & defined as lacking a cite to a reliable source. That is generally not a problem here. Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Remembering, of course, that the list we're talking about does say that reasons to delete "include but [are] not limited to" its contents, so there's a decent chance that the point we're arguing here is moot. That being said, as others have argued here, there's not the ghost of a chance that there'll be a reliable source supporting the claims that every single state on this list (A) is authoritarian (remembering that definitions of that do vary, and assessments of different states as authoritarian or otherwise do as well) and (B) is "supported by" the US (as against the US "maintaining normal relations with" the country, per ErinRC's comments below). If there are such sources, it's probably a good idea for someone - not necessarily you - to add them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - OR *sigh* Atsme 📞📧 01:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons as the Russia/Soviet Union list. Tendentious WP:OR, violation of WP:NPOV because the word 'authoritarian' is inherently subjective.  The author has an objective, which is that America supports authoritarian regimes.  So, this list has a flavor of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, just like the Russia/Soviet one.  Not objective, not neutral, time to go.  Jip Orlando (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep None of the reasons for deletion seem valid to me. I firmly believe that this page should not be deleted. I think that it should be fixed. Deletion strikes me as a rather extreme and unnecessary step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEarth1974 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete In addition to the word "authoritarian", which is not defined in this article, the word "support" is also ambiguous. In a large number of cases, such as Mexico, Swaziland, Malaysia, etc..., this articles seems to conflate "support for" an authoritarian regime and "normal relations with" an authoritarian regime. I agree with !dave in that maybe a Wikipedia article could exist about America's relations with certain dictatorships, but it should be an article that can convey the nuance and complexity of the matter, not just a straight list.ErinRC (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One does not need to define "Authoritarian" in the list because we already have such page. All lists can provide only brief context/summary (at best!) for included items. That does not invalidate the existence of the lists. By the same reasoning one could suggest removing all lists on controversial subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. No definition of "authoritarian" or "support". Also, support for the regime and general support for or good relations the country under that regime are difficult to differentiate. --KoberTalk 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - All original research or synthesis of sources. Grandpallama (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Strange to cite another yet-to-be-closed discussion as a reason for deleting an article. As Rjensen states, no valid criterium for deletion has been argued to apply. I do see a lot of "OR" and "SYNTH" claims. The article is very much not OR given the high prevalence of sources, and SYNTH doesn't apply since each case on the list only has to be sourced individually. Arguing that making a list of separate things is automatically synthesis would be difficult. It's actually one of the best sourced articles I've seen in a while. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - No definition of "Authoritarian", defintely WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and a bit too vague for my tastes. AtlasDuane (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean - Entries should only be kept if they are described as both authoritarian and supported by the United States in the same source, to avoid SYNTH issues. Otherwise, the concept itself is clearly notable, which should be the only consideration for keeping or deleting the article. --Ipatrol (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or restructure - American support for authoritarian regimes has played a major role in modern history and is highly controversial issues since the United States is often referred as the “leader of the free world”. This topic needs an article for those reasons. Charles Essie (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Keep and clean per arguments by Rjensen, Prinsgezinde and Ipatrol, and Charles Essie. It is a notable topic and reliably sourced but the list is bloated. Some entries probably need to be removed, especially if the regimes in question are not overtly authoritarian or if they were merely allies in a hot war. Some like Pinochet and Suharto should obviously be included. Others I'm not so sure about. Stalin was an ally in a major global conflict, not someone installed/backed by the US for its own ends.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2018 (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.