Talk:US history of exporting democracy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

fine, whatever... happy editing... - Adolphus79 06:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The policy you are citing: 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 patently absurd.

Since the WP:NOR idea is patently absued, we are left with the other policy issue: NPOV The underlying problem that I suspect that you have in this article is the NPOV argument. The idea that American history of exporting democracy maybe hasn't been as successful as it is often claimed. I find it a very common tactic that Wikiusers will use wikipolicy to push their own ideologies and beliefs. It sounds much better and much more official to quote copyright law, or WP:NOR, then to admit you simply do not support 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 your 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.

You 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 patently absurd and with no merit whatsoever.

Again, this is simply a POV argument masking itself as upholding wikipedia policy. It is a common tactic, used often by admins and veteran wikipedians against those editors who know less about wikipolicy than others. Fortunately, in this case, it will fail.

Signed: Travb (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signed:Travb (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]