Talk:Non-interventionism

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

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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Libertarianism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance). Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Non-interventionism be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

I wrote a reasonable definition of non-interventionism which did not confuse it with isolationism. I put in some explanatory quotes, too. Hogeye 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence about the United Nations Charter relating to self-determination. I also linked a Wikipedia article to the United Nations Charter, and removed a link that about the United Nations Charter further down in the article. TwohandleS11I (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)TwohandleS11![reply]

That's patently absurd; Stalin intended to rule the world and supported guerilla communist efforts across the oceans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.69.147 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was already a non-interventionism page. It didn't show up when I searched. By all means, please do go ahead with the merge. Since the word "noninterventionism" appears in the dictionary, but "non-interventionism" does not, I would suggest that the non-interventionism page should be the one that points to the other page.MarcMontoni 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with the merger. However Non-inventionism is the logic logical title as the man main non-intervention articles are called that, WITH A HYPHEN.Roger 10:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the earlier one created, was the larger article, and has the longest fullest edit history. The proper way to handle this is to merge the other article into this one, and then get an Admin to assist with a page move to the other name if it is preferred. Since I created this article int he first place, I will do the merge properly. If the naming without a hyphen is desireable, then get an Admin to delete the other page and do a page move of this one to the other title. This way the proper history can be maintained. Hu 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are any American Presidents mentioned in the introduction to an international article and more importantly why is a US congressman listen in succession with me. I think it comes into conflict with WP:NPOV and maybe WP:SOAP. I think it should be removed.--Chadamir 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How funny. I noticed that immediately and was about to remove it. But let the third person who writes here remove it. Htmlqawsedrftg (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. I also change "favor" to "favored", because Washington and Jefferson, to the bext of my knowledge, no longer favor anything. I actually think that Ron Paul ought to be in the article, just not shoehorned in with Washington and Jefferson. Perhaps something to the effect of "Current American politicians who favor non-interventionism include...", with Ron Paul included with other current politicians.--RLent (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be nothing more than a series of links to examples - where is the theory? Maybe some extracts from seminal works such as RJ Vincent's Nonintervention and International Order, moral support for nonintervention, its relation to the realist school of internation theory? Tresdessert (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This example of a non-neutral and non-factual statement appears in the United States sub-section of Nonintervention by country.

both Neoconservatives and New Democrats favor military interventionism in foreign policy, as a means to preserve America's superpower status.

The boldface portion is what I am disputing. While it is true that some of those who favor interventionism may very well do so because they want to "preserve American's superpower status" (and are often accused of such), even if they don't outright say it, that's hardly universal, as this implies. Some favor intervention for humanitarian reasons. Whether that's a good reason for intervening or not will not be argued here, but the statement is factually wrong and, as a result, non-neutral. Someone who favors military intervention in case of—just as an example—genocide would likely feel insulted if someone were to say that his real motivation was merely to preserve America's dominance. I'm removing that statement. TaintedMustard (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added information concerning 9/11 and its effect on US foreign policy. It is important to provide context for the reader since 9/11 changed the different kinds of justification for intervention and how difficult it is to follow non-intervention.TwohandleS11I (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[TwohandleS11!][reply]

I added information under the China section about the South China Sea. Since it is one of the most contested maritime spaces in the world, I thought it would be relevant to include in China's foreign policy. No one has directly intervened but tensions between the countries involved is high, and one sign of attack could elicit a violent response that would engage these countries into war.TwohandleS11I (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[TwohandleS11!][reply]

It seemed as my original edit did not publish or save, so I retyped my edit for the South China Sea under the China section for In different countries. TwohandleS11I (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[TwohandleS11!][reply]

I understand why my information for the South China Sea was removed and appreciate the feedback. I added a section about Russia and their recent invasion of Ukraine. I thought it was relevant to the article and I cited two journals that discussed their actions. I also linked a few Wikipedia articles in the description. TwohandleS11I (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[TwohandleS11!][reply]

There's no page on wikipedia, but Seerow's Kindness from animorphs is also a non-interventionist perspective. Maybe it could be mentioned with star trek's Prime Directive? I don't think the two are enough to justify a popular culture section, but if some one know about some more it'd be an interesting section. Tristyn (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion between the policy of non-interventionism ('avoid alliances') and the principle of non-intervention ('don't interfere in things happening in another sovereign's territory without being asked') is troubling to say the least. They need disentangling, as while I'm not as familiar with the policy, I know that it, as defined, is not the same as the principle. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't 'avoid alliances' be political isolationism, not non-interventionism? Tristyn^⌘ 00:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tristyn: It should be, but the first line of United States non-interventionism defines non-interventionism as "the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense". This may be an issue more with that article than this, but the contradiction (or difference) would be best resolved (or clarified). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice from Foreign relations of Switzerland#Rest of world that "Switzerland is one of the two countries alongside the Kingdom of Sweden representing the Republic of Korea (South Korea)'s interests at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)"; this is expanded on in Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, but no mention is in either article as being because both Switzerland and Sweden are formally non-interventionist (only that the UNC chose the two as two from those "nations whose combat forces did not participate in the hostilities in Korea"). If there are any further sources specifically on the use of non-interventionist countries in mediation, I think it would be a good addition to the article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked a Wikipedia article to the word "NATO" under the Sweden section. TwohandleS11I (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)TwohandleS11! I added a sentence about the International Criminal Court and its role in investigating states if they are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens. I also linked a Wikipedia to the International Criminal Court. TwohandleS11I (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)TwohandleS11![reply]

I included evidence from a journal that mentioned Michael Waltzer's Just and Unjust Wars and when intervention is justifiable. This will help readers understand the contingencies of the non-intervention norm.TwohandleS11I (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[TwohandleS11!][reply]

I found an academic journal related to the principle of sovereignty ^[1] This article explains the heart of non-interventionism which is respecting the sovereignty of states. Additionally, the author stated, "violating sovereignty or territorial integrity is one of the most serious crimes." TwohandleS11I (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)TwohandlesS11![reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 18 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TwohandleS11I (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Varipatel, Aunnestyd.

— Assignment last updated by Gekyume!17 (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TwohandleS11I, Bestrh, the proposed information about South China Sea dispute does not appear to be a notable instance of intervention or non-intervention as defined by this article and including it may be undue weight. Perhaps you can improve some other aspect of the article instead? CurryCity (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not due for the lead and not entirely cited, or seem to be making a point about something else (WP:COATRACK). CurryCity (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added two citations on the sentence about German and Italian involvement in the Spanish Civil War. TwohandleS11I (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[TwohandleS11!][reply]