Talk:US history of exporting democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please explain your reasoning

I see no explanations for your tags. Further, I don't know if your justification is one for speedy deletion. I just started this article. Further: I do not see the reason under: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

How can this article be POV if it covers all three POV? Little change, no change, and major change.

Travb (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

the whole topic is kinda POV IMHO... but as for the db tag, this article is 8 sentences, 4 footnotes, and 16 "see also" links... where is the article? Wikipedia is not a link site... - Adolphus79 06:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages."
The bottom line is that you don't agree with the premise, as shown that you added a POV tag first.
I am adding the content now. Please let me focus on adding content instead of wasting my time on the talk page. The guidlelines for speedy deletion are:
  • No content whatsoever.
  • Any article consisting only of links elsewhere.
Key word is only, and No content whatsoever. 8 sentences qualifies as content.
Further, the original article, when you added the speedy delete tag, had a grand total of FOUR links, hardly a link farm. There is no mention of having a lot of further reading material with a grand total of four links.
I am attempting to add content to wikipedia tonight. Please allow me to do this.Travb (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
fine, whatever... happy editing... - Adolphus79 06:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a deletion tag

Unfortunately, I agree with Adolphus. I don't think it deserves speedy deletion - it merits discussion, and an opportunity for you to respond. However, I agree that it is POV. You have three sections that on face value appear to be balanced, but I'd like to summarize, as I understood them, the three "opposing" arguments:

  • "US intervention does not export democracy"
The US has actively interfered in other countries, but it generally did not succeed in its goal of instituting democracy.
  • "US intervention has mixed results"
The US has actively interfered in other countries, but it often did not succeed in its goal of instituting democracy.
  • "US intervention has exported democracy"
The US has actively interfered in other countries, and it often succeeded in its goal of instituting democracy.

It seems clear to me that this is a point of view, and far from encyclopedic. I agree with some of the points in the article, so please don't accuse me of bias, and it really is a nicely developing essay about US foreign policy. However, it does not abide by NPOV, and I would also say it qualifies for deletion under WP:NOR, i.e. it is a "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." I look forward to hearing counterarguments from you or others. --Bmk 18:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The policy cited: WP:NOR "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."
18 footnotes, 20 articles referenced, and not an single idea my own. This makes the idea that this falls under WP:NOR incorrect.
The underlying idea in the article:
"Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that US attempts to export democracy have been "negligable, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive." This is not my own research, this is the paraphrased idea of Mark Penceny, p. 183, quoting Abraham Lowenthal.
And this is why the Wp:nor#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position position also has no merit. As Wp:nor#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position states:
"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."
I am not creating "a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" I am simply stating an argument by Mark Penceny. If I am stating a view of Mark Pencey, how can stating the argument of Mark Penceny be my own original research?
In the example cited, in this section, it states:
"For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about."
That exact argument, that "Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that US attempts to export democracy have been "negligable, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive." has been published by not one but two authors: Mark Penceny who quotes Abraham Lowenthal, and Abraham Lowenthal himself.
People can argue that Mark Penceny and Abraham Lowenthal are not "reliable sources" but to argue that this article violates Wp:nor#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position is incorrect.
Since the WP:NOR idea doesn't fit, we are left with the other policy issue: NPOV.
I predicted this outcome, that is why I have not posted this page anywhere else. I wanted to build this page to a level where it could resist multiple POV deletion attacks. When it is all said and done, I will collect a list of all of the wikipolicy which is cited to delete this page. I am positive this list will be a long one.
Signed: Travb (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. I think you are correct that this article does not qualify for deletion, per se, but I also don't think it merits a place in the namespace. What really bothers me is that it doesn't strike me as an encyclopedia article. It reads like an essay to me. It is an examination of US foreign policy through the lens of the exportation of democracy. One could write an analogous but competing essay examining US foreign policy through the lens of securing oil sources, and find hundreds of sources to back it up. Or through the lens of racism, or as a christian crusade.
However, I see clearly that you have far more energy for keeping this article in its current status than I have energy for battling to alter its status or for merging it into a more appropriate existing article such as Foreign relations of the United States.
Please don't apologize for your energetic response - I have no problem with that. However it was very uninteresting to read your bitter account of past wikiwarfare with POV editors. I also don't appreciate your description of my good faith effort as a "tactic" of masking my POV. I think it would benefit your experience here not to think of interactions between users as warfare. I also strongly dislike your characterization of people who wish to alter your article as "Americans and apologists". Quite frankly it is that sort of partisan view that shows through in the writing and makes it innapropriate for wikipedia.
In conclusion, I will defer this question until a later time when the article is more complete. Good luck, --Bmk 22:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Response: User_talk:Bmk#Thank_you_for_your_recent_concern you are welcome to move my comments on your talk page to this page, if you wish. I deleted the offending comments. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS

I would consider it a very valuable addition if you would take some of the content in this article and many of its sources and move it to a section in USA - perhaps the foreign relations section? I think it would be a good addition to address the phenomenon of "exportation of democracy", which is an idea that has played an important part in recent US history. Just an idea. --Bmk 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have a better idea. Why not research this topic? The only idea which has any merit is this article is POV. If it is POV, and the three arguments are not fully developed, then develop the POV which fits another POV. Please simply don't delete the article.
I apologize for being so agressive. I deal with these same arguments on a regular basis. Views which are unpopular to the majority of wikipedians are often attacked. I have seen repeatedly the same arguments and same tactics on American Empire and the Philippine-American War. It simply gets really tiring to defend myself from people who have a facade of WP:GF and comprimise but are simply agressively pushing their own POV. I have seen the same behavior on many pages before. The absolute best case I can cite of admins and veteran wikiusers agressively pushing their agenda: using wikipolicy as weapons, agressively pushing their own agenda, and yet speaking comprimise and peace on the talk page is the admins on Talk:Norm Coleman.
I am sure you will wax poetic about how you only have the best interest of wikipedia at mind. You are only following the rules and attempting to comprimise on this talk page. I have heard it all before. It often rings really hollow.
If you wanted compromise and peace, discuss this argument on the talk page with me. Better yet, develop the article further.
It doesn't take a prophet to see were this disagreement is going. I could have predicted it before I put one word on this new page, thus my precations above. If it isn't you who goes the next step, it will inevitably be someone else.
Signed:Travb (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion tag removed

As per the deletion tag:

"You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced."


Re: object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.

Full explanation of why I removed the deletion tag is above. WP:NOR has no merit. NPOV is adressed in the article, with three conflicting view points, which any user is welcome to develop and expand upon.

Re: If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

As per the tag: Please do not replace this template. Travb (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tag

I am putting this article up for a vote to be merged with Foreign relations of the United States, as per the excellent and insightful suggestion of User:Bmk

Please vote here: Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States#Merge_voteTravb (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)