This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Foreign interventions by the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the section "After the Cold War" is using the Weekly Standard's statement calling "the most successful nation-building exercise by the United States in this century" appropriate? This seems like the espousal of opinion by a clearly biased source and does not add to the information base at all.
list-o-military history / overseas expansion / overseas intervention are three different things Esmehwp 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
then shouldn't they link it across to intervention article? ... fine merge them if you want as long as long as you're doin it in good faith Esmehwp 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongly against. These are two separate subject. Moreover, until a merger is decided upon, please don't gut this article of entries that other editors have deemed necessary to this article. Griot 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If this one may have more detail, it must have solid references that deal with the topic in a way of summary, rather than just a former list expanded with editorializing by a wikipedian. `' Miikka 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF MERGER -- this article is duplicative of existing articles, and I see no indication (per comment from Miikka) that any proposed revisions will offer anything new. Is this a list of US Military Actions/overseas conflicts? Then it is covered under that article. Is this is a list of U.S. overseas annexations? Then it is covered under that article. I say: delete it and be done with it. Jkp1187 ( talk) 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult to tell exactly what happened to this article, other than Ultramarine removed huge amounts of material without discussion. However, I do prefer the current historic, rather geographic division of US interventions as it previously stood. As it stands, the article is currently a poorly written butchered stub. The Cold War section needs the most work, additions. There is extensive scholarly research on US interventions in the world (largely the Third World) since WWII (Cold War). I will shortly begin adding and hope others will join me in rewriting what should be a good and extensive article rather than this stub. I understand a lot of POV issues arise with this sort of subject, so let scholarly work be our bench mark.-- David Barba ( talk) 09:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Cold War: Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala, Cuba, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Granada, Haiti?, Honduras?, Nicaragua, Venezuela? Africa: Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo ( Zaire), Egypt, Libya, Liberia, Mozambique, South Africa? Asia: Afghanistan, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Laos, Lebanon, Pakistan, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam, Yemen? Europe: Germany, Greece, Italy
I reverted the article to an older version due to the massive deletions made by single user Ultramarine, the effect of which was a butchering of the article to a useless and void stub. The previous version has citation, writing style, and possible POV issues but it is a more fulling fleshed out text, easier from which to work with and improve rather than rewrite wholesale. I hope others assists in the task.-- David Barba ( talk) 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why no mention? Chwyatt ( talk) 09:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
List the countries in which the US intervened during the Arab Spring.
http://isq.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/02/13/isq.sqv016
As of 2016-12-23, the article claims that the US frequently used the CIA to covertly interfere in the internal affairs of foreign countries, "starting under President Dwight Eisenhower." The evidence for the US involvement in the March 1949 Syrian coup d'état is not as clear as for the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, but there seems to be universal agreement that (a) the US obtained approval for a pipeline that had been held up in the Syrian parliament, and (b) US officials had contact with the leader of that coup, Za'im, before it actually occurred. Harry Truman was president in 1949.
Given this, I think it's incorrect to claim that covert CIA interventions in foreign countries started "under President Dwight Eisenhower." I will change this. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 03:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Overseas interventions of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The article includes intervention in Mexico. Also 'of' -can- be read to mean 'interventions by others in the United States'. Suggested retitle: 'Foreign interventions by the United States'. Thoughts? Humanengr ( talk) 06:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Uglemat: User:Uglemat said, "Cold War: I seem to have invented a new date format". The Wikipedia article on Date format by country summarizes usage in different countries. Usage is not standard even within the same country or city.
ISO 8601 recommends yyyy-mm-ddThh:mm:ss+hh:mm(offset from UTC). For the primary English-speaking countries, the US uses primarily MDY with the month spelled out or abbreviated but occasionally uses DMY. The UK uses primarily DMY but occasionally uses MDY. Canada tends to follow the US in some regions and the UK in others. India primarily uses DMY, but some regions prefer MDY.
When the month is spelled out and the year is given as four digits, there's no ambiguity -- except for dates with months spelled out in languages that are sufficiently different from English to be unusual for someone unfamiliar with the language. For example, someone who does not speak German can probably guess that "Januar" means "January" if the context strongly suggests that it's the name of a month. However, someone who does not know Spanish might be less likely to interpret "enero" as "January".
Fortunately, 2001-09-11 is fairly unambiguously September 11, 2001 (to pick a date for illustration not quite at random). ISO 8601 provides such an unambiguous standard. It has the added advantage that a lexicographical sort will put the dates in the order people expect, and no other date format will do that.
Sadly, ISO 8601 format looks strange and will not easily be adopted. However, I think it's gaining ground, as more people come to see the problem. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 23:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Tobby72: User:Tobby72 added [[File:BigStickinLAmerica.jpg|thumb|right|A map of Middle America, showing the places affected by [[Theodore Roosevelt]]’s [[Big Stick ideology|Big Stick policy]]]]. This is a useful addition, except that " Middle America" is ambiguous; see the disambiguation page for that term. When I first saw that term in this article, I thought "That's not the US Heartland."
There may not be a better term, but this usage was something of a culture shock for me. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
User:2001:5b0:4fc1:c298:497c:a836:edd:6387 deleted the "See also" entry for " Foreign interventions by China". I feel that such a change should be accompanied by a substantive discussion in the companion "Talk" page. That's particularly true for an article with the history of this one: If I read the history correctly, it has been around since 2007. I don't know how long this item has been part of "See also", but I don't think it was added very recently.
Accordingly, I've reverted that deletion. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 17:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
On 2019-02-18 User:78.127.114.12 deleted the following initial part of a paragraph:
The rest of that paragraph was retained, which is:
The reason given was as follows:
I think the comments retained belong in this article, need citations, and the text deleted including citations that seem reasonable to me. The citations deleted include an earlier version of URLs that no longer work followed by what appear to me to be successful attempts to rescue them.
Accordingly, I'm reverting this deletion, apart from the URLs that no longer work. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 13:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User:Alexkyoung for a discussion about the editing behaviour of User:Alexkyoung. His/her contributions to this page are plainly pushing a particular agenda and violate the WP:NPOV policy. Citobun ( talk) 05:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
If Citobun is reading this, my only advice is to stop this abusive behavior and destructive reverting at once. Alexkyoung ( talk) 04:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
References
There are no interventions listed between 1918 and 1939. But see "Timeline of United States military operations". Egarobar ( talk) 21:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Why is there an entire section on this specific (arguably spurious) intervention? It really doesn't belong on this page: far too detailed for such a small incident in the scale of American interventions. I would certainly remove this, and simply replace it with a small blurb, linking to the main page on the incident. ColonelJJHawkins ( talk) 14:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This article presents the entire span of armed conflict in the Philippines as occurring between 1899-1913. However, did the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War" end in 1902 or 1913? Regarding post-1902 conflicts in the Philippines, a contested
claim asserts:
"Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war."
[1]
failed verification
[2]
pages needed
[3]
pages needed
[4]self-published YouTube video of an individual who is not a subject-matter expert on the Philippine-American War, asserts a novel end-date for the Philippine-American War that has not passed peer review by established subject-matter experts.
original research?
This claim is used to justify inclusion of the Moro Rebellion in the article info box of the Philippine-American War. Was the Moro Rebellion part of the "Philippine-American War", or was it a separate military episode running concurrent with the "Philippine-American War"? Chino-Catane ( talk) 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Chino-Catane ( talk) 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Foreign interventions by the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the section "After the Cold War" is using the Weekly Standard's statement calling "the most successful nation-building exercise by the United States in this century" appropriate? This seems like the espousal of opinion by a clearly biased source and does not add to the information base at all.
list-o-military history / overseas expansion / overseas intervention are three different things Esmehwp 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
then shouldn't they link it across to intervention article? ... fine merge them if you want as long as long as you're doin it in good faith Esmehwp 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongly against. These are two separate subject. Moreover, until a merger is decided upon, please don't gut this article of entries that other editors have deemed necessary to this article. Griot 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If this one may have more detail, it must have solid references that deal with the topic in a way of summary, rather than just a former list expanded with editorializing by a wikipedian. `' Miikka 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF MERGER -- this article is duplicative of existing articles, and I see no indication (per comment from Miikka) that any proposed revisions will offer anything new. Is this a list of US Military Actions/overseas conflicts? Then it is covered under that article. Is this is a list of U.S. overseas annexations? Then it is covered under that article. I say: delete it and be done with it. Jkp1187 ( talk) 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult to tell exactly what happened to this article, other than Ultramarine removed huge amounts of material without discussion. However, I do prefer the current historic, rather geographic division of US interventions as it previously stood. As it stands, the article is currently a poorly written butchered stub. The Cold War section needs the most work, additions. There is extensive scholarly research on US interventions in the world (largely the Third World) since WWII (Cold War). I will shortly begin adding and hope others will join me in rewriting what should be a good and extensive article rather than this stub. I understand a lot of POV issues arise with this sort of subject, so let scholarly work be our bench mark.-- David Barba ( talk) 09:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Cold War: Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala, Cuba, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Granada, Haiti?, Honduras?, Nicaragua, Venezuela? Africa: Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo ( Zaire), Egypt, Libya, Liberia, Mozambique, South Africa? Asia: Afghanistan, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Laos, Lebanon, Pakistan, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam, Yemen? Europe: Germany, Greece, Italy
I reverted the article to an older version due to the massive deletions made by single user Ultramarine, the effect of which was a butchering of the article to a useless and void stub. The previous version has citation, writing style, and possible POV issues but it is a more fulling fleshed out text, easier from which to work with and improve rather than rewrite wholesale. I hope others assists in the task.-- David Barba ( talk) 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why no mention? Chwyatt ( talk) 09:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
List the countries in which the US intervened during the Arab Spring.
http://isq.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/02/13/isq.sqv016
As of 2016-12-23, the article claims that the US frequently used the CIA to covertly interfere in the internal affairs of foreign countries, "starting under President Dwight Eisenhower." The evidence for the US involvement in the March 1949 Syrian coup d'état is not as clear as for the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, but there seems to be universal agreement that (a) the US obtained approval for a pipeline that had been held up in the Syrian parliament, and (b) US officials had contact with the leader of that coup, Za'im, before it actually occurred. Harry Truman was president in 1949.
Given this, I think it's incorrect to claim that covert CIA interventions in foreign countries started "under President Dwight Eisenhower." I will change this. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 03:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Overseas interventions of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The article includes intervention in Mexico. Also 'of' -can- be read to mean 'interventions by others in the United States'. Suggested retitle: 'Foreign interventions by the United States'. Thoughts? Humanengr ( talk) 06:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Uglemat: User:Uglemat said, "Cold War: I seem to have invented a new date format". The Wikipedia article on Date format by country summarizes usage in different countries. Usage is not standard even within the same country or city.
ISO 8601 recommends yyyy-mm-ddThh:mm:ss+hh:mm(offset from UTC). For the primary English-speaking countries, the US uses primarily MDY with the month spelled out or abbreviated but occasionally uses DMY. The UK uses primarily DMY but occasionally uses MDY. Canada tends to follow the US in some regions and the UK in others. India primarily uses DMY, but some regions prefer MDY.
When the month is spelled out and the year is given as four digits, there's no ambiguity -- except for dates with months spelled out in languages that are sufficiently different from English to be unusual for someone unfamiliar with the language. For example, someone who does not speak German can probably guess that "Januar" means "January" if the context strongly suggests that it's the name of a month. However, someone who does not know Spanish might be less likely to interpret "enero" as "January".
Fortunately, 2001-09-11 is fairly unambiguously September 11, 2001 (to pick a date for illustration not quite at random). ISO 8601 provides such an unambiguous standard. It has the added advantage that a lexicographical sort will put the dates in the order people expect, and no other date format will do that.
Sadly, ISO 8601 format looks strange and will not easily be adopted. However, I think it's gaining ground, as more people come to see the problem. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 23:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Tobby72: User:Tobby72 added [[File:BigStickinLAmerica.jpg|thumb|right|A map of Middle America, showing the places affected by [[Theodore Roosevelt]]’s [[Big Stick ideology|Big Stick policy]]]]. This is a useful addition, except that " Middle America" is ambiguous; see the disambiguation page for that term. When I first saw that term in this article, I thought "That's not the US Heartland."
There may not be a better term, but this usage was something of a culture shock for me. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
User:2001:5b0:4fc1:c298:497c:a836:edd:6387 deleted the "See also" entry for " Foreign interventions by China". I feel that such a change should be accompanied by a substantive discussion in the companion "Talk" page. That's particularly true for an article with the history of this one: If I read the history correctly, it has been around since 2007. I don't know how long this item has been part of "See also", but I don't think it was added very recently.
Accordingly, I've reverted that deletion. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 17:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
On 2019-02-18 User:78.127.114.12 deleted the following initial part of a paragraph:
The rest of that paragraph was retained, which is:
The reason given was as follows:
I think the comments retained belong in this article, need citations, and the text deleted including citations that seem reasonable to me. The citations deleted include an earlier version of URLs that no longer work followed by what appear to me to be successful attempts to rescue them.
Accordingly, I'm reverting this deletion, apart from the URLs that no longer work. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 13:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User:Alexkyoung for a discussion about the editing behaviour of User:Alexkyoung. His/her contributions to this page are plainly pushing a particular agenda and violate the WP:NPOV policy. Citobun ( talk) 05:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
If Citobun is reading this, my only advice is to stop this abusive behavior and destructive reverting at once. Alexkyoung ( talk) 04:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
References
There are no interventions listed between 1918 and 1939. But see "Timeline of United States military operations". Egarobar ( talk) 21:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Why is there an entire section on this specific (arguably spurious) intervention? It really doesn't belong on this page: far too detailed for such a small incident in the scale of American interventions. I would certainly remove this, and simply replace it with a small blurb, linking to the main page on the incident. ColonelJJHawkins ( talk) 14:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This article presents the entire span of armed conflict in the Philippines as occurring between 1899-1913. However, did the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War" end in 1902 or 1913? Regarding post-1902 conflicts in the Philippines, a contested
claim asserts:
"Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war."
[1]
failed verification
[2]
pages needed
[3]
pages needed
[4]self-published YouTube video of an individual who is not a subject-matter expert on the Philippine-American War, asserts a novel end-date for the Philippine-American War that has not passed peer review by established subject-matter experts.
original research?
This claim is used to justify inclusion of the Moro Rebellion in the article info box of the Philippine-American War. Was the Moro Rebellion part of the "Philippine-American War", or was it a separate military episode running concurrent with the "Philippine-American War"? Chino-Catane ( talk) 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Chino-Catane ( talk) 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
References