Talk:Timeline of the United States diplomatic history

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). United States History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs Other : Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess: {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}} International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The timeline has to emphasize the major issues and now it does a poor job. Many major issues are missed (Embargo for example, start of war of 1812, diplomacy with Mexico, dispute re Oregon, war with Mexico. etc etc Note that except for one entry it ends in 1963-- showing it was taken from some long-forgotten book or whatever. The original article is unsourced so it has no credibility. I will start fixing it with the major events but that will take w while. Rjensen 13:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I found the source from which the article was copied. http://www.faqt.org/Qhoo/United_States_Treaties.html

dated 2000 (pre-Wiki). David Levinson used to copy a lot of lists, and this one ended in 1963....no authoritative source given. SInce it was made before Levinson was born he got it from some mysterious source. He's Professor of Transportation Economics, Engineering, and Planning at U Minnesota http://www.ce.umn.edu/~levinson/ Rjensen 13:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact David Levinson created the list sometime in 1986 or so from what he thought were important events listed in the Almanac of American History (ed. Schlesinger) and other sources. There is no evidence the list was created before he was born, rather that what would be important in the 1960s - present was not as clear as what was important prior to the 1960s. dml 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA engagement in LAtin America is very poorly covered - Chile being the most obvious example... I'll start adding cases that are backed up by official documentation (such as Chile 1963-73)... --Boszko2 12:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC) No Afganistan war???!!!???[reply]

There is no mention of Nixon's opening up with China.

Rjenson, you removed edits I made on the basis that they had footnotes. And that this article doesn't use footnotes. What policy are you quoting?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on this timeline is to have links to articles which have full citations. Otherwise we would have multiple citations for every entry--thousands! Please also avoid POV language; the timeline will not work with that. Rjensen 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on further examination, that was one of the most outrageous removals of another editors work I've come across, Rjenson. Please do not remove sourced, relevant material such as that again claiming "POV". Please detail this "POV language" below. The sources were scholarly, and in one case was the US National archive. And if you don't think that the US embargo on Cuba and the Guatemalan projects are relevant to a Timeline of United States diplomatic history, then you are welcome to bring this up in a wider forum. Because I certainly think they are and I imagine 95% of others editors would as well. As above, what policy are you quoting concerning footnotes? The last featured article I was involved in had nearly two hundred footnotes, inline as all articles should - also see List of important operas, a featured list that has 319 footnotes. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary that such and such a country is or is not democratic/ dictatorship etc is POV and can't be allowed. No original research allowed either (which I think is what the footnotes were intended to convey). Our goal here is to have a very long list of short items (one or two sentences) that is cross referenced into other articles. The Opera article notes are to two general non-POV reference books (Viking and Gove). We have a short list of ref books in this article too, but I don't see much point in putting in footnotes to them. Most of the events we have are discussed in most of the textbooks and reference books listed. Rjensen 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you citing, and which edits are discussing? I didn't add "democratic/ dictatorship" to this article.

1. You have systematically removed inline citations without justification.
2. How can sourced content that refers directly to the citations be original research?
3. What do you mean by non-POV references. Please explain?

Everything on this page should have inline citations. You have removed inline citations. Problems are afoot with this article, and will need to be addressed in a wider forum. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 07:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This article does not reference ANY Native American Treaty whatsoever! Are they not RELEVANT?[reply]

• Should this article have inline citations and footnotes? Or should they be removed?

This article does not reference ANY Native American Treaty whatsoever! Are they not RELEVANT?

• Is the US National Archive a "POV" source that would need to be removed?
• Is Eisenhower and Castro: US-Cuban Relations 1958-60 a "POV" source that would need to be removed [1].
• Is "Green Light-Red Light: Henry Kissinger's Two-Track Approach to Human Rights During the 'Condor Years' in Chile and Argentina a "POV" source that should not be used on an article [2].
• Are details that use these sources as a reference original research?

• Should this article mention the United States embargo against Cuba?
• Should this article mention Operation Condor?
• Should this article mention Operation PBFORTUNE and the attempted overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in 1952?

My belief is that (1) of course this article should have inline citations and footnotes. See featured timeline Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. (2) All the references are acceptable, meeting WP:V and WP:RS, and ofcourse it isn't original research to quote from them. (3) The content is all relevant to this article.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 07:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not reference ANY Native American Treaty whatsoever! Are they not RELEVANT?

The first basic rule of Wiki is that when there is controversy on an issue, all main POV have to be represented, not just one. Please try to be encyclopedic and try to give a fair summary of BOTH positions. That is hard to do when the entry is a couple sentences. Secondly original research is not allowed; footnotes have to be to secondary sources and again BOTH sides of a controversy have to be included or it violates Wiki policy. Rjensen 07:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my additions which you removed as "POV" and original research, alongside the footnotes.

• 1952 - Guatemala. CIA attempt to overthrow Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in collaboration with Nicaraguan leader Anastasio Somoza authorized by President Truman. The operation is known as Operation PBFORTUNE.^[1]
• 1954 - Guatemala. President Eisenhower authorizes Operation PBSUCCESS, a program of "psychological warfare and political action" and "subversion," that succeeds in removing the government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán with the help of Guatemalan military general Carlos Castillo Armas.^[1]

It should be noted that "psychological.." etc has been taken by the researchers cited directly from the CIA report which they link to. This is dismissed below by Rjenson as "false, POV".-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1960 - Cuba. Partial trade embargo placed on Cuba after the new Revolutionary government instituted national agrarian reforms.^[2]

This is exactly what happened. Cuban agrarian Reforms instituted on May 17 1959. In June threats were made to Cuba that boycotts would ensue unless more compensation was provided to US expropriated land owners. In light of this Cuba began trading with the Soviets and the partial trade embargo was enforced. (Hugh Thomas - Cuba: The pursuit of freedom p1217). This is dismissed below by Rjenson as "unbalanced, POV".

• 1961 - Cuba. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 passed which prohibited all aid and authorized a total embargo against Cuba.^[2]

Entirely factual brief statement of important moment in US diplomatic history. Dismissed below as "cutting aid too is minor for inclusion" by Rjenson.

Here are additions added by some other editor that you also removed without explanation.

• 1975-1983 - Operation Condor. Active diplomatic and intelligence cooperation with numerous South American right-wing military juntas to help in the repression of insurgent guerrilla movements, in fact this repression extended to political dissidents of all kinds.^[3]-- Zleitzen^(talk) 07:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not reference ANY Native American Treaty whatsoever! Are they not RELEVANT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.46.84 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not reference ANY Native American Treaty whatsoever! Are they not RELEVANT?

• re 1952: we usually skip things that did not happen
• re 1954 false, POV and unbalanced. Does not explain US motivations or what the US did (set up loud speakers)
• re 1960. unbalanced POV. fails to explain US motivations
• re 1961 cutting aid too is minor for inclusion; misleads users re embargol cutting diplomatic relations was more impt and should be mentioned;
• re 1975-83, falsely suggests this was American program. This article does not cover the diplomatic operations of the many other countries in the world. This stuff was entered only because of one-sided POV. Wiki editors can do a lot better. Rjensen 08:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but these responses do not wash. Just writing "we don't do this", "unbalanced POV" and saying that the US embargo against Cuba is too minor for inclusion is not good enough. Adding that these well documented and important events were only "entered only because of one-sided POV" is not worthy of further comment. Every serious academic analysis of US diplomatic history 1950-1980 will include these episodes. So should and will this article.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question I guess is whether Zleitzen is committed to writing NPOV entries that show the multiple sides of contentious issues. I hope so, for then he could be a valuable editor. Rjensen 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you've removed the footnote references yet again - I believe that is the 4th time you have done this. In light of this extraordinary behaviour, I think your enquiries as to the value of other editors is unwise. My edits, which come from an academic base, an extensive knowledge of the subject matter and are cited to academic/reliable sources, stand on their merits - yours which are not cited to anything at all and break basic WP:ATT policy stand on their merits.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with Zleitzen's approach is that he shows no interest in having a NPOV article in this highly contentious field. he seems to have an agenda contrary to the NPOV rules. That is unfortunate. Rjensen 11:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen, claiming that I have "no interest in having a NPOV" article and that I have "an agenda" is not very interesting and does nothing to help your cause. How about keeping to the basic tenets of WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:V and sourcing your edits. How about you stop removing footnotes and sourced material and how about you stop adding more unsourced material. That would be more productive than repeating daft straw man theories about my motives above.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps Zleitzen will declare that he supports the Wiki goal of NPOV. Rjensen 12:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My editing record speaks for itself, Rjensen. I always cite established verifiable sources, usually know what I'm talking about, and help write good or featured articles for wikipedia, which by their nature have to be NPOV. This article cites no sources, is a very poor article and is at present being guarded by an editor who is removing basic sourced facts and refusing to accept wikipedia policy. Either your methods of removing sourced information is supporting wikipedia - or my methods of adding sourced information is supporting wikipedia. Which is it I wonder? I return to my original theme on this page. Should the facts on this article be established and cited to reputable sources? Or should you be allowed to add unsourced material or remove material based on your whims? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles should be well sourced with inline citations for ease of referencing. Failure to do so on anyone's part should prompt another wikipedian to either locate a good source for info without a source, or, on failing in this search, request help from the person who originally placed the unsourced info. In my view if the placer does not respond to this request within a week, delete the info if it can't stand up to scrutiny. However if this should lead to what i gather are called edit wars then perhaps higher admin should be consulted. Douglike 12:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Affair is listed as lasting from 1864-65 but the link provided to the wiki (stub) for the same event says that it lasted until '67. I assume it is an interpretation issue as to what constituted the end so, what do we decide? Benito Juárez's death or some other point? 76.30.159.238 (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was by me... forgot to sign in... Danman111111 (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come the Treaty of Watertown is not included. --Drgs100 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]