Talk:List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945

This page should be merged. This appears like a smaller version of List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945, the only difference is the word "alleged" in title.Travb 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I haven't seen any dissent and its been some time. I'll move nonduplicates from this page to that one today. Kalkin 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. As I began to move some of the stuff I realized it really has been quite deliberately separated. The stuff on this list is unconfirmed, attested to by sources of varying number and quality; the stuff on the other page appears to all be confirmed and acknowledged. Probably not a bad idea to keep them seperate. For one thing, it makes it clear just how much indisputable U.S. intervention there's been. For now, I'm reverting. Kalkin 20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a little on what alternative I'd advocate. A sentence should go at the top of this page saying "This is a list of alleged U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 whose existence is disputed. It does not included all U.S. foreign interventions. For confirmed interventions, see List of United States foreign interventions since 1945." The sentence at the top of that article should be changed to read "This is a list of confirmed U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. It may not include all U.S. foreign interventions. For alleged interventions whose existence is disputed, see List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945."

Finally, I think there is a better case for some kind of merger is between List of United States foreign interventions since 1945 and Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad. Since the former includes military operations, I'm not sure why the post-1945 sections are seperate. Perhaps you know? Kalkin 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shit. Having gone through some of the covert interventions on the other page in the process of cleaning it up a little, I'm now conflicted. The selection of what's "alleged" and what's not seems to be arbitrary. Maybe the merger's the right idea after all, but it'll involve a lot of work. :( Kalkin 22:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJK has not answered me about the merger one way or the other. Since our ideologies are so different, and we have spared before, I think it is better to get his opinion to avoid a revert war.

You are absolutly right, the list will take a lot of work, work which I don't want to commit to right now.

I have only added stop gap measures, stopping some of CJK's deletes, stopping the article form being deleted completely in delete actions. I see CJK's actions as heavy handed and POV, he sees his deletions as making the article more encyclopedic and only using verifiable sources. (see our discussion on the talk page)

I also (with major reservations) agree with your statment:

Finally, I think there is a better case for some kind of merger is between List of United States foreign interventions since 1945 and Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad.

The list Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad is from an official US source, the US military. I created the page. Where as List of United States foreign interventions since 1945 is a rag-tag list, collected by wikiusers. I am afraid combining both will make the Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad less authoritative, and open to the same kind of apologists attacks as List of United States foreign interventions since 1945 has been historically.

The only way I think the two lists should be combined is to first validate every item on the List of United States foreign interventions since 1945, a gargantuine task in and of itself. This means quantifying what stays on the list and what is deleted, I already have prunned the list (see the talk page, last entries), restricting the meaning of what is "intervention" and not allowing anything beyond one sentence of explanation.

I have jealously guarded these restrictions, deleting anything that falls outside of these rigid guidelines. The reason I do this is clear: to avoid another revert war, or worse, have the article again submitted to a vote for deletion by more American apologists.

I mention these restrictions because I think before we were to combine the two articles, we would have to come up with a defintion of what is proof enough to be on the list. Since many of the interventions listed are done by a clandestine organization who wants to keep its actions secret (the CIA), this is a very hard thing to do.

To give one example of dozens, do we include the alleged CIA overthrow of the President of Venzuala in 2002? How about the alleged involvement of the US in the overthrow of Arestede in Haiti? Apologists like CJK would probably say no, Anti-americans like myself would say "yes".

If we limit the list to "confirmed" involvement of the CIA, there is the debate on what is "confirmed", many apologists still argue that the US was not involved in the overthrow of the Chilean president. I don't think we can reach a consensus.

In addition, many current, contemproray alleged actions of the US, which occured only in the last decade would be removed, simply because the CIA has their fingerprints on the actions, but deny involvment. Thanks to declassification of documents by the freedom of information act, the world is only now finding out the covert actions of the CIA in the 1950's and 1960's, today. It will be another 40 years before the world knows for sure whether the US had its hand in the overthrow of Chavez and the Haitian president. Again, Apologists would probably say no we are not invovled, giving the CIA the benefit of the doubt, "Anti-americans" like myself would say "yes", they most definatly were involved, citing history.

Anyway, something to mull over, I need to write a hypothetical peace process for the Colombian Armed Conflict for a class.Travb 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, it seems like your examples are good ones of why we shouldn't separate "confirmed" and "alleged" covert interventions. It's bound to lead to massive disputes. Here's my suggestion for an overall reorganization.

Current situation: we have three closely related lists, List of United States foreign interventions since 1945, List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945, and Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad. The boundaries in terms of degree of confirmation/acknowledgement are unclear. Somewhat more clear is the definition of intervention (to interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation), but this is still disputed.

My suggestion regarding lists: there should be two. One, List of U.S. covert foreign interventions since 1945. Two, List of U.S. military foreign interventions since 1945. Maybe not those names, but those subjects. Basically, List of alleged US... and List of US...#covert would be merged, and Instances of use... and List of US#military would be merged.

My suggestions regarding standards for inclusion:

First, degree of confirmation. For military deployments, this should not be difficult. They are not generally covert. A few disputed cases might be noted as such without problem. For covert interventions, this is by nature more difficult. I would suggest that a claim from at least one credible source, which has not been refuted by later developments or retractions, would be sufficient for inclusion on the list, regardless of disputes. This should be noted in the introductory sentence. Additionally, something minimal about the degree of confirmation might be noted in each entry (e.g. "admitted/denied by CIA" "confirmed by public records" "alleged by whistleblower John Smith"). By credible sources, I mean (1) government documents (2) "mainstream"/corporate media reports (3) whistleblower CIA veterans. The last is likely to be most controversial, but I think such evidence is at least enough to warrant mention.

Second, meaning of intervention. Again, in the case of the military, this is fairly clear. Any politically significant military deployment abroad - i.e. whatever's not a friendly training visit. In the case of covert interventions, your definition isn't bad, but the rules regarding 'threat of force' should be relaxed a little. Covert interventions in support of coups, for example, generally involve giving funds, information, and other logistical support, not actual military force. Thus the 1948 Italian elections should be included if the 1973 Allende overthrow should be. (Both should.) The distinction from foreign aid - which I agree must be drawn - would have to be in terms of secrecy. If the CIA is giving money or other aid without acknowledging it, it's most likely an intervention. If the US is giving money through the NED or whatever, it's most likely not. Another criterion would be inducement of change. If the US is supporting some dictator for years of stable rule, that's most likely not intervention. If the US is supporting a stolen election or military coup, that most likely is.

My plans for action: I will continue going through the List of alleged... and moving those that I can confirm reliably to the covert section of the main list. I will not attempt to do an actual merge, however. I agree we should wait a while for more comments before taking that big a step.

Finally, side note, political rather than encyclopedic. I don't think you should accept the "anti-American" label. It conflates hostility to the U.S. government with hostility to the U.S. population. That's not a conflation you should help the nationalists get away with. Kalkin 03:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent ideas--i wish i had time to help. Some comments, but first: overall I like the entire idea keep that in mind as you read my comments. I just have questions and minor suggestions.

You wrote: "Additionally, something minimal about the degree of confirmation might be noted in each entry (e.g. "admitted/denied by CIA" "confirmed by public records" "alleged by whistleblower John Smith"). By credible sources, I mean (1) government documents (2) "mainstream"/corporate media reports (3) whistleblower CIA veterans. The last is likely to be most controversial, but I think such evidence is at least enough to warrant mention.'

I have to argue a Slippery slope here. As soon as you add more than one sentence, then you open the floodgates to interpretation and revert wars, etc. Better to simply have a statment, then add a link to the page--let the ideologues fight it out there. A better idea is maybe put each entry in neutral, vague subcategories:

"admitted/denied by CIA"
"confirmed by public records"
"alleged by whistleblower"

You wrote:Second, meaning of intervention. Again, in the case of the military, this is fairly clear. Any politically significant military deployment abroad - i.e. whatever's not a friendly training visit. In the case of covert interventions, your definition isn't bad, but the rules regarding 'threat of force' should be relaxed a little.

If CJK can agree to this, then I think you are safe with the apologists not reverting your work. I personally disagree that the rules should be relaxed, instead, I think (and I have wanted to write) that there should be an US election manipulation page, which this list can link to.

I argue that you keep this list intact with rigid rules, and instead make a new page. Sometime, if you don't beat me to it, i would like to write that page, using a lot of William Blum's work on the subject.

Sometime I may expand on why I use the anti-American label, not tonight though, need to go do other things, including my work in school about Talk:Colombian Armed Conflict.Travb 07:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess I agree with your slippery slope. How about, instead, the covert interventions list has two subcategories. (1) Confirmed by public records. (2) Alleged by whistleblower or media. Media in this case would mean, and would be clarified to mean in the intro sentence for the subcategory, a major/popular/mainstream newspaper/magazine/TV news etc. If there's a New York Times story, or even a San Jose Mercury News story, then that counts; if it's from an independent website or whatever, no. If something falls into the first subcategory, there it goes; if not but it falls into the second, there it goes; if it falls into neither, it's not on the list. This should allow inclusion of any important allegations, allow room for a distinction in degree of confirmation so that things that remain covert can be included, and still avoid a slippery slope of debate on the list page.

As for a distinction between intervention and election manipulation; for now I would say both should be included covert intervention page, as long as the election manipuation meets the criteria I gave above (is secret, etc). Once an election manipulation list is made which could include public manipulation as well, something I agree is a good idea in the long run, then that stuff could be moved to it. For now, better to have it somewhere than nowhere.

With regard to that new list you found, List of United States military history events. It's very comprehensive, which is good, but it doesn't make a distinction between domestic and foreign events, which is bad. I say it should be added to. The new proposals I made above should be subcategories. This means (1) expanding the covert operations, coups, military advisors... subsection, and (2) splitting the militarized conflicts subsection into two parts, militarized conflicts fought abroad and militarized conflicts fought within the United States. Finally I like the year-in-front-of-event format of the "intervention" lists better, and I would propose that the big list be switched to it. It makes it far easier to tell at a glance how much activity took place in a certain period as well as what the reason for the ordering is, and as far as I can see has no corresponding downside. Thoughts? Kalkin 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]