The question has now been completely deleted. Can anybody please explain who did this and why?

This question has been closed as too broad by the community.

The only comment regarding the closing was

List questions are, by their very nature, too broad

This comment was addressed by two users (Disclosure: one of them is me) to be answerable as it is, and that it should be re-opened.

However, in the comments, some more objections have been put forward, which I try to summarize fairly in the following as well as giving their respective counter-argument by me.

  • if these lists already exist then we don't really need to duplicate them on this site

    This argument could be applied to anything on this site.

  • These sort of "big-list" questions don't really fit all that well in the format in my opinion

    The list isn't a big list at all; as the question is sufficiently specific, "democratically elected" and "removed from power" , it boils down to about 5-6 cases where successful coups removed fully democratic governments, and 5-6 cases where successful coups removed initially democratically elected heads of state which were moving toward more autocratic regimes, which technically would also fall under the category of the OP.

  • The question might be reworded to ask for sources of lists

    It has been reworded by the OP accounting for that.

  • but it seems to be a history question anyway

    Ok, I admit that's a valid point as the question is in the intersection between contemporary history and international relations. To accommodate for that fact, the question has been edited by me to restrict to cases after WWII. As most of these cases belong to the Cold War period, for a orientation I've compared the affiliations of first 20 members (alphabetically) of the Editorial board of the Journal of Cold War Studies, to find that 50% are in Political sciences, 30% in History, and 20% have interdisciplinary chairs. So this would suggest that it is legitimate to have this question in Politics.SE

  • as long as we […] accept any particular definition of "democratically".

    There are indeed cases where the question is open whether the elections that brought the person into power were indeed sufficiently democratic or whether the head of state subsequently tried to change the constitution etc. However, this is not problematic to address, a sentence in each case is sufficient, e.g. "the election was boycotted by the opposition". This requires of course some research, but I'm ok with that. Also, objections to a certain framing of an answer could be raised in the comments, and the answer can then be improved (this is how this site is supposed to work, see also the Tour page or the third bullet point under "When should I edit posts" here)

  • I would say a list of historical military or quasi-military actions is not what this site is expected to provide.

    This is not about a historical list (see point above) of plain military or intelligence actions, this is about changes in governments facilitated by another government. This results in huge implications for the politics of the state that became a victim to such a regime change as well as for the international relations between states. Just compare this the the impact of such history-changing events as the failed Bay-of-Pigs-invasion, or the Soviet crackdown of the Prag spring uprisings. Google "9/11 Chile" if you want to find out how significant such events were.

    A short rebuttal of this point is the following excerpt from On-topic Help page: "This means, the following items are on topic: 1. Matters of Policy:" Foreign policy is a subset of policy, therefore this is clearly on-topic.

After a suggestion in the comments to take this discussion to Meta, I've done so hereby. As of now, all the questions raised in the comments have been addressed, so that I suggest that this question should be re-opened.

I've flagged the question already to be re-opened by a moderator, but the moderators answer is quite disappointing, as he or she shifts responsibility back to the community. Here the decline-message:

declined - I'm sorry, but I am hesitant to unilaterally reopen a question which was closed by community vote unless it was edited to address the concerns the community mentioned. Ask community members to reopen.

The question was edited to address the valid points raised by the community, unfortunately the moderator still declined the flag, which can not be objected.

So I kindly ask the community hereby to either

1) provide a substantiated argument why this question should remain closed, questioned

2) give suggestions how the question could be improved by editing to better fit in here,

3) or to please vote to re-open it.

  • the moderator still declined the flag -> Note that no moderators were involved. The reopen queue is done by the community: politics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/12820 – Martin Tournoij May 18 '17 at 15:05
  • @Carpetsmoker Ok, but then can you please tell me reasons why you've voted 'Leave closed' when you have no justified objections communicated in the comments, and every other concern raised has been addressed? – jjdb May 18 '17 at 15:12
  • I did leave a reason in the comments, whether this is "justified reason" is of course a matter of opinion ;-) I think there are several good reasons why this question is not a good fit for this site, and if I have some more time later I'll elaborate on them (unless someone else does it first). – Martin Tournoij May 18 '17 at 15:16
  • @Carpetsmoker Ah, sorry. I quickly glimsped over the comments and missed yours. Yet, I gave an answer to your comment for which you have not provided a reply so far. If you have several good reasons, I would be happy to hear just one at least. – jjdb May 18 '17 at 15:47
  • Well, I typically get a bunch of comments/replies every day, and have other things going on in my life as well and can't always reply to every comment in <20 hours ;-) If you want an in-depth discussion about a question like this, or want to dispute the closure of a question, then the best way to do that is start a meta question (which is exactly what you've did!) – Martin Tournoij May 18 '17 at 16:39
  • @Carpetsmoker Nobody expects seriously that every comment is answered in less than 20 hours. However, if people are able vote in less than 20 hours to decline a re-open request before arguments are exchanged sufficiently, their motivation behind the vote appears questionable, to say the least. – jjdb May 18 '17 at 20:19
  • Arguments about these sort of questions have been exchanging for almost ten years - ever since Stack Overflow got launched ;-) – Martin Tournoij May 18 '17 at 20:39
  • @Carpetsmoker This is again one more point for providing the actual reasons here (if these arguments are so common they surely can be brought up quickly again). But what exactly do you mean by "these sort of questions"? Doesn't this already show you having a bias toward the question? – jjdb May 19 '17 at 9:59
  • 1
    I saw some questions that require a very long answer be discarted. While one can answer yours in less strictly less than 197 words (with a list of country names), I think each country would require a lot of context and precisions. Hence the broadness of the question. Also, the "motivations" part at the end is not really useful. – user5751924 May 19 '17 at 21:13
  • @user5751924 Besides the fact that not every state has a name consisting of a single word, and the fact that over the course of history there were more than 197 states, it is neither the case that all these states were democratic, nor that the US tried to topple all their governments, nor that the US were successful in each of these instants. As I explained before (2nd bullet point), the list is sufficiently succinct. The context and precision can be given, of course. Maybe we can edit the question to address that point? I agree, the motivations part added by the OP is not helpful. – jjdb May 20 '17 at 6:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .