Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Scope 2

See also Scope (again) (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If the US prevented another party/entity from taking power, would that count as regime change? "Regime change is the replacement of one government regime with another". This is what our article says. I ask because 1947–1949: Greece and 1947–1970s: Italy, for example, are sections that discuss the US preventing left-wing parties from taking power. This is foreign intervention, obviously, but I do not think this means it meets "regime change" standards. Replies would be helpful.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"1947–1949: Greece and 1947–1970s: Italy, for example, are sections that discuss the US preventing left-wing parties from taking power." This is incorrect. The Italian left were a part of the regime, including at the cabinet level, in 1947, prior to US-backed expulsion. The Greek left were the de facto government (recognized at times by the Allies) in many parts of the country in 1944.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment While we're at it, I think it would be useful to agree on a common denominator of what constitutes regime change, to avoid undue weight and original research in the article.

Answering at the question I believe that also depends on the means of how it was prevented, indirect prevention should not be considered as such. The lead currently includes "preserving" foreign governments as part of regime change. We can discussed of what constitutes this and/or if it should be removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Well, "preserving" a foreign government is not "the replacement of one government regime with another". This appears to be WP:OR.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I was quoting the established version, assuming that it has acceptance in the community, but I too think "preservation" should be removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If anything, a separate article could be created for "preserving" or "support". Perhaps "United States support of regimes"? But this would be a very broad article.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• "preservation" should be removed." Disagree per below. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• a separate article could be created for "preserving" or "support" Disagree per below. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe moves or merges are in order later. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Or maybe moves or merges are in order later. Disagree per below. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• If the US prevented another party/entity from taking power, would that count as regime change? Absolutely without question. I think this is common sense. The title is "involvement in regime change", and per [1] by NYCJosh in Scope (again). --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not change change. This content has been stable for 7 years, since article was created in October 2012. I have restored. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eons of Mollusk: Please consider reverting these edits and restoring the relevant content: [2] [3] [4] --David Tornheim (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Please consider reverting this edits and restoring the relevant content: [5]

@ZiaLater: Please consider reverting these edits and restoring the relevant content: [6],[7],[8],[9] (This one I have already reverted).

To all of you: Please do not delete large sections of well-sourced material to this article. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I could consider reverting the removal, but I would like to ask before for further explanation on why you disagree. I have previously cited WP:SILENCE and WP:CCC to explain why consensus changes and why he shouldn't consider long standing versions as a reason to keep them. It's never too late to improve an article.

Pinging editors involved in last discussion @BobFromBrockley:@C.J. Griffin:@GPRamirez5:@Adoring nanny:@SandyGeorgia:@Darouet: --Jamez42 (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If a change in regime is possible, imminent, or anticipated, and the US intervenes to stop it, I don't see how that wouldn't constitute US involvement in regime change. The lead is fine as is and I also disagree with the deletions in question. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. That's what I also think.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have notified editors in the Russia involvement in regime change article. I believe they should be notified because the outcome should also apply to that article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Thanks for showing the previous discussion. I have read it over and it seems there was no consensus on whether "prevention" was regime change. They quoted a book that stated "In 1947, Truman launched the first preventive regime changes of the Cold War to ensure that communist parties would not win democratic elections in Italy and France." There is still an issue with the wording, especially since "preventative regime changes" is not clear phrasing. It reads as if there were governments overthrown in order to establish a regime that would crackdown on communism, not necessarily that preventing communist party participation was regime change itself. There might be more info in that section of the book elaborating on "preventative regime changes", but as said in that discussion, this seems to be the opinion of one expert.

The edits I performed were to avoid a possible WP:COATRACK article where certain international events occurred that get thrown onto this. Every event in this article should be verified by reliable sources as being described as a "regime change" if "regime change" is in the article's title. Simply assuming that a particular event is regime change WP:OR. I also do not agree that we should have a ridiculously long title that includes every possible term either. The article and its title should be concise in order to prevent it from being a COATRACK article.

In summary, yes, the US obviously had and has been invovled in regime change, both covertly and overtly. Yes the US has also been involved in preserving some regimes as well. But this is not an argument on if such events had happened or not. What is important is that the wording and the sources support the scope of this article.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Thanks for reply. The title says "involvement in regime change". So preserving a government is "involvement".

Every event in this article should be verified by reliable sources as being described as a "regime change" if "regime change" is in the article's title. I disagree. If WP:RS describe something that is clearly part of the definition of regime change, it should be included. Another editor mentioned the scholarly work on the definition of regime change in academia. Let's use that as WP:RS and not what the mainstream media defines it to be.

What is important is that the wording and the sources support the scope of this article. True, which is why "preserving a government"--especially one that is about to be toppled and/or voted out of power--is involvement in regime change. But rather than using common sense in the definition, let's find academic sources that define it. Which ones are you thinking of?

Google Scholar has a bunch of articles that might be relevant. Also Noam Chomsky's work is no doubt relevant. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: It does not seem to be the case that many of the governments were going to be "toppled and/or voted out of power", but that would have to be established by sources. Involvement is still involvement, no doubt, but the question still remains if "preservation" is "regime change". There has not been a significant answer presented yet through this entire talk page. We can argue that anything is "common sense" on Wikipedia, but verification is key. Thanks for understanding and I will eventually take a look at this.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I read the source and the author is arguing that prevention does count as regime change. This is one author's opinion, however. The section discusses the domino theory and how both the United States and Soviet Union used "proxy conflicts" as an arugment to defend their security interests. This source could actually be used to add more neutrality to this article and I will attempt to do so momentarily. Again, thanks for the discussion.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If we're defining regime change that broadly this article is going to end up as a redundant fork of History of United States foreign policy. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I know I am weighing in very late on this, but I strongly support the several editors arguing here for a more restrictive use of "regime change" rather than one that is so expansive as to cover every act of US involvement in another country's affairs. Bear in mind we have other articles such as List of wars involving the United States, Military history of the United States, United States military aid, Timeline of United States military operations, American imperialism, etc. In my view, each section here should be able to say what the "regime" was before the US got involved, what the US did to change it, and what the regime was afterwards. If it can't do that (and use reliable sources to do so), as in several sections of the article, it shouldn't be here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

AN/I

This article has been mentioned in this AN/I.

I'm leaving this notification to any editor that is interested in reading or participating. --Jamez42 (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

= Philippines annexation ==--NYCJosh (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eons of Mollusk: Am I correct in understanding that you made this edit removing the Philippines 1944 because after overthrowing the Japanese occupation, the US annexed the Philippines? Can you please explain why you think the US removing the occupying government and replacing it with its own government is not regime change? If annexation does not count as regime change it would necessitate the removal of a large chunk of Russia involvement in regime change as well, which does not make sense IMO. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspect its because the US was restoring the status quo antebellum. The Belgium, Netherlands, and especially the China sections all look out of place for the same reason. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

1917–1920: Austria-Hungary

This section seems irrelevant to this article. US entry into WWI had nothing to do with replacing the Habsburg regime, nor was there later a US concerted effort to do so.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Australia

This recently added section was not adequately sourced. It contained four sources, but most of them were low quality, and due to improper formatting, I was unable to determine what one of them even was. This one [10] appears to be a series of transcripts from various television and radio programs, and perhaps part of some kind of political hearing? [11] is an opinion piece, and not reliable for factual claims. The third was an improperly formatted cite to what I think is the book Abiding Interests, written by Whitlam himself, which is obviously not an independent source. And the fourth I don't have access to, but it's only used as a source for the counterargument that the CIA had nothing to do with Whitlam's dismissal. The claim that the CIA somehow orchestrated the removal of a sitting Australian prime minister is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and requires exceptional evidence. I don't think any of these sources meet that standard. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon I had initially heard about the alleged CIA involvement in Australia in a previous talk section on this page, and I learned more about it later on. As well I saw that the 1975 Australia constitutional crisis page has a section on alleged CIA involvement too. I saw that the CIA had not confirmed it outright however the Guardian and Boyce said that the CIA was involved. I was not sure whether to add it but I saw that other sections like Iraq: 1963 did not rely on formal CIA confirmation, after being talked heavily. I thought it would be best to just add it and see what other editors thought since there is at least some credibility to this accusation. I understand if there is not enough credibility at the moment to merit the Australia section. Though I think the Iraq: 1963 should not be removed since there is more credibility for that, and that has already been talked about in depth. As well I think the Alleged CIA involvement should stay on the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis Page, since again there has been enough credibility to at least mention the allegations on there. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis article is able to put the allegations in context, and frames them as just that: allegations. To put that in this article is to frame them as facts. Perhaps there are sources out there that would justify inclusion, but from what I've seen, this is something that is uncertain and unproven. And the sources that were in this section definitely did not support the claims being made. I'll need to do a little more reading, but the 1963 Iraq section might need to go too. The issue isn't the "credibility" of the claims, it's whether expert sources describe what happened as a regime change instigated by the United States. We shouldn't be including entries in this article about regime changes that "may have" involved the United States. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

In relation to the above, while I am hardly an expert in this topic area, Eons of Mollusk's section on Zaire 1996-1997 is about 5,000 bytes long and barely mentions the U.S., and appears to be claiming that the U.S. reducing support for Mobutu and "covertly" supporting Rwanda (with no elaboration on what that entailed, specifically) during the First Congo War constitutes a U.S. program designed to foment Mobutu's ouster. I'm wondering if Eons of Mollusk could provide some quotations from the cited sources that might substantiate this conclusion and help me to understood why such content is relevant to this article when First Congo War, Rwanda–United States relations, and Democratic Republic of the Congo–United States relations all seem like better options to place it in the appropriate context. At present, we need more information on what, exactly, the U.S. did, and a lot of the extraneous stuff should be cut down to size.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon like I said before I decided to put up the Australia section because there is evidence going both ways, and I realized that it would be likely removed. There was some notice at the top of this page a while ago saying something along the lines of: don't be surprised if something is removed, we're not always working with the most precise evidence and a lot of this is controversial. So I understand again why it was removed and I'm not arguing against you. As for Iraq: 1963 I recommend you take a look at the previous talk section since it was talked to in depth there before doing anything. TheTimesAreAChanging I will go more in depth on US involvement in the First Congo War and try to remove unnecessary background. The Congo Wars are often nicknamed the "African World Wars" due to the fact they are just as complex as the World Wars, however people are generally more familiar with the World Wars than the Congo Wars. That's why I had the long background. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think "United States involvement in regime change" should involve any involvement that's significant, not that the US government "orchestrated" the removal of a government. Also, the fact there is widespread belief that the US government was involved in the Whitlam dismissal deserves mention on a page like this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland I agree but I was talking about the amount of evidence not how much the U.S. was involved. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right about "orchestration" being too high a bar, since the title is "involvement", after all. That was a poor choice of words on my part. But I disagree when it comes to "widespread belief" being enough. The article isn't about rumors, theories, or allegations. It's about US involvement in regime change. We need high quality sources saying that the United States was actually involved, not just saying that people accused the US of involvement, or people think the US was involved. And the section as it existed in the article was poorly sourced, as well as being unclear about what actually happened or if the US was involved at all. This was a significant even in modern Australian history, so I assume there's been a lot of research on the subject. Presumably, if there was evidence of US involvement, then some political scientists or historians will have written about it. If that's the case, then those are the sources we should be using, not an opinion piece in the Guardian, and certainly not Whitlam's own book. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you object to Whitlam's book.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The ideal sources are secondary, independent, and reliable. A politician's book about his own firing is neither secondary nor independent. The only thing we can expect a person's memoirs to reliably report are their own opinions. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Scope (again)

I want to try to re-animate the discussion from last year here on the scope and focus of this article. The title of the article refers to regime change but the lede and current article seem to include other things, such as regime preservation and election interference. Questions include: 1) should the title change to reflect this wider focus?, or 2) should the lead and article be tightened to keep the focus on the topic signalled by the title? Specifically, 3) should the article include regime preservation (e.g. China 1898, Laos 1955-60)? 4) should it include tussles for imperial territory that didn't involve regime change (e.g. Somoa 1887-89)?, 5) should it include support for liberation from occupying powers (e.g. France 1945, Kuwait 1991)?, and 6) should it include election interference, given that (e.g. Italy 1948+)? If the answer is yes to most of questions 3-6, I'd argue the answer to (1) needs to be yes too. If the answer is no to any of 3-6, we need to make sure appropriate material is moved to Timeline of United States military operations or Foreign interventions by the United States before deletion. In the last discussion, I think three of us argued for removing regime preservation actions and tightening the lede in relation to that, with maybe two editors disagreeing, so not really a consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with this in principle, I take issue with your removal if the Indonesian mass killings from the lede. This was PART on the regime change action, in fact the most significant part, and facilitated and encouraged by the US and its allies for the express purpose of regime change. Giving it more thought, perhaps this is preferable and provides proper context in terms of the scope of the article, especially given the details of how the US was complicit in this regime change are still provided in the body.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• According to this Foreign Policy article by Stephen M. Walt, failed attempts at regime change count as involvement in regime change. See its Suez 1950s section and Yemen 1960s section.

  For the US, he names recent scheming in Somalia, Yemen and Syria as involvement in regime change.

GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree that failed attempts at regime change should be included. (Obviously not those two cases, as US wasn't involved, but I don't think that's what you're saying!) My question (3) is about when the US involvement is in regime preservation, successful or failed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• L.A. O'Rourke's book Covert Regime Change, published by Cornell University Press, includes almost all the Cold War examples here under regime change, as presented on a list on page 3. On page 107, it explicitly says that "In 1947, Truman launched the first preventive regime changes of the Cold War to ensure that communist parties would not win democratic elections in Italy and France." So no, those are regime changes not "regime preservations." GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO the main thing is that the title should drive the content. The phrase "regime change" denotes a change of the regime. So anything that is unambiguously a change of regime should be included, regardless of whether sources describe it as a liberation, a revolution, a coup, or whatever else. Other things you are arguable, such as whether or not an election is a regime change, whether or not attempted regime change should count, regime preservation, and so forth. So on those issues, the main thing is consistency. I don't think it should depend on finding a source that describes one of the above as "regime change". Just try to treat analogous situations similarly.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"I don't think it should depend on finding a source that describes one of the above as 'regime change'" Actually, reliable sources is exactly what it should depend on. Any methodology that doesn't find RS refuting the classifications found in the Walt and O'Rourke scholarship is in violation of WP:VERIFY from the outset.GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability is not about finding particular words. It's about verifiability of events. For example, suppose you find an article that says "Joe shot John. John died of his wounds the next day." It would be entirely correct to write an article that said "Joe killed John", even though the source didn't use the word "killed". Just apply a little WP:COMMON.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Verifiability is not about finding particular words. It's about verifiability of events." That's a distinction without a difference: in encyclopedias, words are how historical events are represented. GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it your position that if, for example, a source were to say "The X Government of country Y was deposed by a CIA-supported coup", that this would not be a case of US-supported regime change, since neither the phrase "United States" nor the phrase "regime change" appeared?Adoring nanny (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No. But ironically that seems to be your position. GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time assuming good faith here. What is the value of attacking me for supposedly arguing the opposite of what I have been arguing? Adoring nanny (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're feeling attacked, but all I did was answer your question and make an observation about the irony of your thought experiment.GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What irony? As I have been arguing, the phrase "regime change" is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not there was such an event, not the words one uses to describe it. My example was a case of regime change, adequately sourced, but without the phrase. As you appear to agree, at least in the context of the example, the relevance comes from the event, even when the phrase is lacking. If you agree with the example, why the disagreement with saying it in words?Adoring nanny (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Joe killed John. Clearly. GPRamirez, as to that tendency to personalize discussions that I mentioned below. Could you just ... knock it off? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: GPRamirez5 has personalized nothing in the discussion above. As to the substantive issue, it's reasonable (and wholly consistent with policy) to consider a foreign policy intervention to be a regime change operation if reliable sources describe it as such. -Darouet (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

To summarise the substantive rather than personalised part of this discussion, Adoring nanny argues that we should adopt a consistent approach to what we include, and GPRamirez5 provides a decent source (an academic press book by a political science assistant professor) suggesting what I've called "regime preservation" should be considered "preventative regime change" and therefore included (i.e. an answer of Yes to my question (3) at the start of this talk section). I'm not sure if I understand O’Rourke's idea of "preventative regime change" but it would be good to have more views on this, and views on my other questions. I realise I didn't explain the election interference one (my question 6). What I meant to say was that a change of administration via a democratic election is not generally seen as a regime change, as the regime form remains stable. Again, any views on that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd definitely think that intervening in an election amounts to something like a "regime change operation," and indeed O'Rourke lists Italy among her examples. In that particular case the involvement of the CIA, the clandestine nature of the operation, and the significant sums of money spent all further argue for listing here. -Darouet (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Having two scholarly sourced definitions of regime change does not (yet) convince me, since the possibility of cherrypicking exists-- I'd like to see more sources on which to base this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A title such as "United States involvement in regime change, in regime preservation, in foreign election interference and in attempts and combinations of the foregoing" would be quite awkward and not in keeping with general WP style. It's sufficient that the title conveys the thrust of the article. The introduction clarifies the scope by providing a more comprehensive description. Also as noted by others in this section, this broader scope is consistent with how scholars in this field understand the scope of regime change actions.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree per NYCJosh. NYCJosh: This issue has been resurrected at Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Scope_2. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC) [fix revised section header 22:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)]

Cambodia 1970

I have restored this deletion by Eons of Mollusk which deletes material about Cambodia 1970, which was first added by NYCJosh on 19:30, 22 July 2019. The edit summary for the deletion was:

I have looked into this coup further and while there are allegations of US involvement that should be investigated further there is not enough evidence at the moment for it to be listed on this page.

When you say "I have looked into this coup further", can you please explain what sources you used to come to this conclusion? This line makes me think the material--that survived almost a year without objection--should be included:

Historians are divided about the extent of U.S. involvement in or foreknowledge of the ouster, but an emerging consensus posits some culpability on the part of U.S. military intelligence.

--David Tornheim (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

When I had previously edited the 1970 Cambodian coup d'état page and the 1970: Cambodia section here and I got the impression from how it was written that the jury is still out on whether the CIA was involved. The reason I think the section should be removed is because it is still unclear. If the historical consensus is that the CIA was involved than keep it. However both articles should be rewritten to be more clear and not be iffy on the subject. As well some stuff is not sourced. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

NYCJosh has certainly added loads of dubious content to this article, but I think that the "1970: Cambodia" section actually has merit. In addition to Clymer (cited above), consider the following quote from Ben Kiernan's How Pol Pot Came to Power, p. 300: "Prince Sihanouk has long claimed that the American CIA 'masterminded' the coup against him. ... There is in fact no evidence of CIA involvement in the 1970 events, but a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces." Now, it would be one thing to say that other sources might disagree with Kiernan or to emphasize that Cambodians were the primary actors in the coup, but Kiernan is one of the world's leading Cambodian scholars, so this is obviously not a FRINGE viewpoint—it may even be the majority view among relevant scholars, and Wikipedia should reflect that unless the academic consensus changes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is an academic consensus than fine I thought there was not enough evidence and consensus to merit it be on this page. All I ask is you just rewrite it here and in the main article on the coup to be firm about the consensus. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if it is not the consensus/majority viewpoint, if it is a significant minority viewpoint, it must be included per WP:DUE:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Based on the above, I think it safe to say that TheTimesAreAChanging and NYCJosh have established that it is a significant opinion.

--David Tornheim (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Chad: 1981-1982

Hello I recently created the section on the 1982 coup in Chad, because there is direct evidence of US and CIA involvement as linked in the section, however when I was looking into it there seemed to be various inconsistencies within it. First the technical date of regime change maybe off. Habre (the dictator) first attempted to take power in 1979, however failed, but succeeded in 1982. Forces loyal to him still fought between 1979 and 1982, and I could not find when the US began to support his takeover, though from what I found they most certainly did, so the date might need to be changed. Secondly the main sources on Habre's initial rise, previous appointments, and alliance with Felix Malloum on his Wikipedia page do not load or have been deleted since they have been linked, so I did not put down that information. If someone has better sources and more/correct information could they add it and make the appropriate changes. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2019

I have researched and changed the original dates to more accurate dates, and I have also given detail and background. There is just a bit more sourcing I have to do. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Added the last citation for this section, it should be good now. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Panama

Pinging editors @Eons of Mollusk:@SharabSalam: to discuss the Panama section. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The possibility to use a common criteria for the Russia involvement in regime change has been considered. Taking this into account, the section of Angola was removed as it counted as separatism/independence. If the same criteria is applied, the Panama section in this article should be removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42 is right on point as to why I removed the 1903:Panama section. There a new country was created. While yes, the government ruling over the Isthmus of Panama changed, the previous Columbian government still existed in power. If the US had overthrown the Columbian government to get the canal, even if they had still had made Panama independent in that situation, and even if the new government had changed the name of the country (Columbia) once they took it, that would count as regime change for Columbia, however this did not happen. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The US intervened to change the government of the region. Whether a "new country" was created or not is immaterial. If the US sponsored an independence movement in British Columbia, Canada in order to achieve a more US-friendly government there, that would also be US involvement in regime change, since the regime in power of the region would have changed. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No @Cmonghost: your example would also count as separatism. For it to count as regime change the government of Canada would of had to of had government change forced upon it by the US. As well the most common examples of the use of the term "regime change" in the contemporary United States language I've seen are in regards to US relations to Venezuela, Iraq (in regards to the Iraq war), Syria, and Iran. In these cases I've seen politicians and others talk about needing regime change in these countries or opposing regime change by the US in these countries, or defending past attempts of regime change, etc. In each of these cases the speaker is referring to forced change upon the government, not funding a separatist revolt in these countries. If there is concern about the representation of these conflicts I'd recommend the creation of a page on the US support of separatism and independence movements, as well as one for Russia too, if there is concern on the representation of those conflicts too. — Eons of Mollusk (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

For it to count as regime change the government of Canada would of had to of had government change forced upon it by the US You seem to be mistaken about the scope of the article. It does not need to be "forced", the US only needs to be involved in a regime change for the events to merit inclusion in our article. In the Panama case, this requirement is met. The exception would be if the government remained unchanged after separation, e.g., if the provincial government of BC became the new national government of the independent state of BC. This was not the case in Panama, as a junta took over the government. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: For the first point I understand my phrasing was slightly confusing, I should of said involved, since the US might not necessarily create political factions within the country that want regime change.. For your second point this definition would also include annexation, which since the removal of the Mexican American war up to this point, was established not to count as regime change. And as previously stated the common discourse use of regime change refers to changing the government in power e.g. modern debate in the US around the governments in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and Iraq (in regards to the Iraq war). Just supporting a separatist/independence movement does not count as regime change. My point is best demonstrated by Encyclopedia Britannica where is says "Use of the regime concept often involve specific an association with a specific individual, ideology, approach, or political project...It is used colloquially by some...when referring to governments they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate, or simply so not square with the person's own view of the world...Regime change thus refers to the overthrow of a government considered illegitimate by an external force and its replacement with a new government according to the ideas or interests promoted by that force." from Kevin Ward at Encyclopedia Britannica. The article than gives the example of the Iraq War. Here is the link to it Separatism on its own does not fit in here with the definition. The only way the separation of Panama would be regime change would be if the Colombian government was overthrown by the US and that government gave Panama independence, and even if that was true than the section would be called "1903:Columbia" not "1903:Panama" since the focus would in that case be on the Columbian government's overthrow, not the creation of Panama. — Eons of Mollusk (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but the dictionary definition for "regime" is simply not a reliable source for what "regime change" is. It is not "separatism on its own", it is separatism with the support of the United States which led to a change in the government of the region. Annexation does count as regime change (see my comment in the section below). If other annexations were removed then they should also be restored. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: I struck my comment above about "dictionary definition" as it's actually from the Encyclopedia Britannica article. My other points stand. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You will notice that MJ Gasiorowski's Political Regime Change dataset, published in the Journal of Comparative Political Studies, includes Panama 1903. [12] I hope this settles the issue. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: While you had struck out the comment understanding it was Encyclopedia Britannica, the article I was citing was giving a definition to regime change not the word regime, though the quote is present on their regime page. As well at the top of this Wikipedia page, the criteria put out is "United States involvement in regime change has entailed both overt and covert actions aimed at altering, replacing, or preserving foreign governments." While some of the examples afterwards in the paragraph do not fit this criteria, and should be removed, it is shown by this that annexation does not count as regime change. As well the creation of new countries is not shown by this. As well in regards to your view that annexation of territory counts here, than that would mean that almost every war in human history is regime change, which again is not how it is used. As well in regards to your view below on many of the Russian examples, many of them like the Baltic States, are disputed as whether they count as regime change. — Eons of Mollusk (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: As well I'm going to start a another talk page for the definition on regime page, since we can't seem to agree on it, I'll ping you and some others onto it. — Eons of Mollusk (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to address the material I struck from my comment—I struck it for a reason. Are you going to cite any scholarly sources or other reliable sources in support of your thesis that Panama 1903 was not regime change, like I did for the antithesis? Otherwise, there is no point continuing the discussion. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look into the information provided, I just don't have access to it, since the website is a payed subscription. I will likely comeback to this topic in the future. — Eons of Mollusk (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the abstract of the study (as I did not have access to the rest), and I also took a look at other studies on regime change that I could find. It appears to me that the study is just using independence as a starting point and is not including the creation of a country or new political entity as regime change. I will continue looking, but no study I have found has tried to define regime change as including the creation of a country. Though no studies I have found have a focus on its definition. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela 2

@Jamez42: You reverted my addition of 2019 Venezuela--which was conspicuously absent from this page. Inexplicably, you accused me of tendentious editing. I summarized the best WP:RS I found from a simple Google search of U.S. regime change. I am troubled you added such an accusation against an editor in the edit summary (where it cannot be stricken) rather than to assume good faith and follow WP:BRD.

It's clear from comments on this page, that Venezuela needs to have its own section.

In the this RfC above, which you participated in, the closer found four months ago:

[T]here is a consensus to add content regarding "United States involvement in regime change" in Venezuela, just not in the form proposed.

Yet, there is inexplicably no section mentioning U.S. regime change in Venezuela, despite repeated requests to have it added. (e.g. [13] by an IP and [14], [15] by GPRamirez5). Can you explain why that is, when you are a very active editor of this article and talk page, as the #6 top editor of the talk page and the #8 top editor of the article?

I added content by summarizing the WP:RS I found. If your assertion is that it is non-neutral, please explain how you would change the language. I do not see why you have made no attempt to discuss on the talk page per WP:BRD but instead removed the content with an accusation against an editor rather than against the material added. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: weI will ask again: address the issue besides merely focusing on the editor. Otherwise, at best, it makes any discussion harder to progress, and at worst it can constitute personal attacks.

I have no idea why you are quoting BRD since you are that made the bold edit, specially given that it is essentially different from the proposed text in the RfC. I'm glad that you respect the D in BRD, but if there has been no discussion it is simply because the subject has not been brought up. This means that we have to discuss and agree on which actions can be considered as "regime change", and which actions referred in the past can constitute regime change attempts in Venezuela. Moreover, we haven't even proposed which periods of time are going to be considered for the section, if any. Should we continue to start from 1999, with the presidency of Chávez? What about 2013 with the presidency of Maduro? Only 2019? These questions remain unanswered

The U.S. efforts for regime change in Venezuela intensified in January 2019 with the increase of crippling sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and warnings. is not the best phrasing that can be included, and labels such as "crippling" do not help at all with neutrality. Particular care should be taken considering that because there is an extensive history of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV complaints about the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As a starting point, I have restored this version which you were previously comfortable with.

This means that we have to discuss and agree on which actions can be considered as "regime change"

No. That is WP:OR. We report what the WP:RS says regime change is.

I would be support having the discussion once an actual change of government occurs. [16]

No. We do not withhold discussion on content to wait on some WP:FUTURE speculative event an editor is waiting or hoping will happen.

Above I asked you if you disagreed with the need for a section on Venezuela. Your response was "Yes...you have not argued why.". Actually I have, for two reasons:

(1) The WP:RS supports it.

(2) the consensus of this RfC supports it.

I urge you to discontinue your wholesale deletions of the entire section and all of its well-sourced material (2-28-19, 4-11-19, 12-29-19) and instead work towards improving it. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: It is not WP:OR, it is consensus building, agreeing upon the content, finding a middle ground, and even if it was WP:OR does not apply to talk pages.

Since there has not been actual political change in Venezuela, there should be extra care on arguing that regime change attempts have ocurred, as I have explained extensively in the past. Charge d’Affaires James Story declared on September that The United States is not seeking a military intervention as a solution to the economic and political crisis in Venezuela, supporting a peaceful and negotiated process, and on December Secretary of State Mike Pompeo further stated did not plan a military intervention in Venezuela. Considering that the article talks about United States both overt and covert actions aimed at altering, replacing, or preserving foreign governments., not every single action by the US should be included (see WP:ONUS).

You ask me to improve the content, but the best way to do it is to present it in a neutral manner, and the reason why I'm aking about specific actions or years is precesily for improvement. Yet, you have not cited which one of them you would like to include and why. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that even if we take Story's story at face value (Trump and others in the administration previously made many references to possible military intervention so it's hard to believe it's actually off the table now), "military intervention" is not the only type of regime change. The US has funded many coups without bloodying its hands directly. Considering the US has endorsed Guaidó as the legitimate president and has been repeatedly stating that Maduro must step down, has leveraged sanctions to pressure him to do so, etc., it would be difficult to say that they are not attempting to replace the government. [17]: U.S. officials have repeatedly said that all options, including military action, are on the table to try to remove Maduro. The article you cite from Reuters also says The United States has thrown its support behind Guaido and levied broad sanctions against Maduro’s government to pressure for his exit. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Fair enough, but support for Guaidó is more of a diplomatic endorsement rather than a regime change attempt. If there have been other attempts in other countries is not the question, but rather if it has happened in Venezuela, namely if Guaidó has received financial or logisitical support, rather than just diplomatic; I believe this has been brought up in the past.

I think economic sanctions have the strongest rationale, but still reliable sources have to report that they specifically have the intention of regime change. Furthermore, the only example of sanctions currently included in the article is Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was afterwards deposed. This article table shows several countries that have been sanctioned by the United States, and arguably the main reason for these sanctions are human rights violations. Most notably Russia is one of the sanctioned countries, and it's hard to say that these sanctions advocate for a regime change. Policy change is different.

While for the military intervention, concrete actions remain to be shown. Before that, once again, these are only political stances, and bluffs in worst case scenario. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source (AFP) reporting that the US has funded Guaidó, including paying the salaries of his staff: [18] Re: sanctions, the reliable sources do report that they have the intention of regime change! Just from the Reuters source above: The United States has thrown its support behind Guaido and levied broad sanctions against Maduro’s government to pressure for his exit. Bluffs and threats from one of the world's major superpowers are also very consequential and a number of sources reported on Trump's, Bolton's and Pompeo's threats of military action to remove Maduro: [19][20] Note that military action is presented as an alternative if a "peaceful transition" is not possible (i.e., if Maduro steps down willingly, they won't need to forcibly remove him). It's hard to see how these could be interpreted as anything other than threats. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I forgot to mention another important point, which is that the sanctions as we currently know them started on 2017: just after the Constituent Assembly was established, Maduro consolidated power and Guaidó was nowhere near to be seen. Threats are still political stances and actions, not the overt or the covert actions described in the lead; I'm not denying that there still have been credible threats. In any case, as the New York Times once described, threats aren't effective for this purpose considering Maduro's stance, and have only emboldened him.

The Yahoo source seems to be better, although the memo quoted by AFP says that the funding would go to "good governance" in Venezuela, interim government staff salaries or stipends, work-related travel and other costs necessary to ensure full deployment of a transparent financial management system and other activities necessary for a democratic transition., non-governmental organizations to create media content and airtime to provide greater reach to Venezuelan citizens and finally diplomatic efforts by Guaido's supporters as they negotiate with Maduro. Considering the article mostly deals with forced and violent means to change political systems, I'm not sure if this fits into this, specially the last purpose, in the case the aid is for peaceful purposes or a transition. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources state that the goal of escalating sanctions, at least in 2019, is to remove Maduro. NYT: President Trump signed an executive order on Monday imposing new economic sanctions on the government of Venezuela, escalating his campaign to remove President Nicolás Maduro from office.

Paying for the salaries of Guaidó's staff is direct material support for the opposition, regardless of whether it's framed as "promoting good governance" or whatever else.

As for your last point, I don't know of any definition of regime change that states it must be violent. Our lead gives a permissive definition including both overt and covert actions. Even if it did, I just provided sources for overt threats by the US to invade if Maduro does not step down willingly. (Even if the current position of the US has changed, it doesn't mean that these past threats should not be covered in the article.) Maduro not acceding to these threats does not mean that they are not threats. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I cited violence as a common factor throughout the article to quote consistency. Would you agree in this case on adding Venezuela on 2019, mentioning this financement and the sanctions? --Jamez42 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Recentism?--redux

Pinging @BobFromBrockley:, since they expressed concern last year about recentism and that the section would was becoming inflated. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: For some reason you pinged in the edit summary, suggesting I am somehow responsible for the "WP:RECENTISM", something that you are in the minority about, especially now that the U.S. has ratcheted up sanctions.

What's particularly odd about this supposed problem is that much of the language in the section was added by you ("U.S. intervention unlikely", coup allegations,criticism of report) and by the other editor you pinged (context of Guaido's claim as president). Six percent of the article text is attributed to you and only half that to me.[21]. I added these two quotes, both of which you had cited, because I had the sense you thought they were necessary for neutrality.

The material you added from the Maduro article about false accusations adds to an already verbose paragraph (possibly also written by or mostly by you) that seems to have the intention to try to prove that Maduro is a "conspiracy theorist" and that he lies even more than U.S. politicians. Even if that were true, it's mostly irrelevant. Almost all of that paragraph--except for the fact that he made the allegations and that he apparently had a history of false allegations is all that is needed.

I am not sure why you added "intervention is unlikely" from some expert who is basically trying to predict the future. WP:CRYSTAL. What's the point of adding that? I think we can delete that sentence, but the sentence from Bolton that "all options are on the table" for regime change is certainly relevant.

I might remind you, when I restored the section, my version had only two sentences:

The U.S. efforts for regime change in Venezuela intensified in January 2019 with the increase of crippling sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and warnings. Mark Weisenbrot writing for the New Republic said the sanctions (which he considers illegal) are a "plan to starve Venezuela into submission."

I have no objection to brevity. Let's hear your proposal to simplify the section--rather than wholesale deletion of well-sourced material that is relevant.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Stop. You are consistently attacking me on unrelated edits about unrelated issues and in some cases that took nearly a year ago. These are personal attacks that I have repeatedly asked you to refrain from and only makes discussion more difficult to progress. I will notify a noticeboard if this persists. Please focus on the edits at hand; I can address your diffs particularly, but I don't think it will be productive for the article at this point.

I pinged you because you were the editor that has merged and expanded the current section. If you wanted to mention that you don't disagree with brevity, the last paragraph would have sufficed. I don't know which minority are you talking about since as far as I know a specific discussion on recentism or the section length has not taken place. The most important discussion I was referring to is in the section above, where @Cmonghost: have discussed which text should or could be added, and I consider 2019 sanctions and financement to Guaidó to be the best proposal. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I added this section as a possible version that talks about 2019, gives a brief introduction and deals with both Guaidó's funding and sanctions. --Jamez42 (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. Although, I like brevity, too much well-sourced material has been deleted, and the non-neutral new section reads like an advertisement for Juan Guaido.

In line with this, I agree with Eons of Mollusk who asked to restore information on 2002, which s/he did here, but it was deleted again by ZiaLater. It can be restored, since it has WP:RS to back it up. The language could possibly be tightened up. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I was more so saying that if the 2002 coup is added back that it should be separated from the more recent section on Venezuela, unlike how I found it. I understand there is much talk over how to add Venezuela in, and that there is dispute over the 2002 section, and I am not commenting whether I want it back in or not, since you guys are debating whether it should be included. I wasn't surprised when I found it deleted due to the talk right now about it on the page. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the previous version was much better. I haven't heard a clear explanation for why explicit threats of military intervention don't warrant inclusion, for example. The part about sanctions is also a little ridiculous as it refers to sanctions as if they were already mentioned, when they weren't. Also, I don't think the NYT needs attribution on this as the wording is used in other sources. Trump and the administration have made it clear many times that they want Maduro to go and that the sanctions are part of this effort; we don't need to say "the NYT said the sanctions are meant to remove Maduro" as if it's disputed or fringe. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Cmonghost I put it back that way. Yeah, I took at the NYT attribution. The sentence was originally my attempt to avoid plagiarism, but every time I have read it since then, it looks silly for the reason you said, so I deleted it for that reason even before you mentioned it. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As for the 2002 coup, the removing edit summary says Reliable sources do not say this was an attempt at regime change on behalf of the US. That's true, RS don't say it was "on behalf of the US". But it didn't say that anywhere in the article. What it did say is that US-funded institutions were involved, which they were. See also my point here: [22]. Note that the talk page for the Latin America article shouldn't be given as a justification for removing the 2002 coup from this page, because the discussion there is still ongoing. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Accusations section

@Jamez42: I strongly disagree with the move of the full section to a separate "Accusations" section. In your edit summary you say Replacing Venezuela section with the established Accusations section from United States involvement in regime change in Latin America. Actually, your use of the "accusations" section on that page has been contested (by me) and you have yet to reply. See here: [23]. As I said there:

the purpose of sections is to organize the article, not for editors to assess and label the validity of the information. The pre-existing organization of the article is by country, not by the nature of the content, and aspects that distinguish Venezuela from other countries should be (and already are) in the text, not conveyed through the section layout.

I have moved the information back to the appropriate location. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the material should not have been moved into an "accusations" section, and I agree with what you say in your next post immediately below @ 02:38. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that I think the previous version of the 2015-present text, from February 2019, was better. The current version (which is the same as from the Latin America page) is devoted mainly to criticizing Maduro and Chávez rather than discussing the US's role. I think it should be changed back unless there's a good reason to prefer the current version. (you didn't provide one in your edit summary) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Thank you for noticing. I agree with your arguments. Also, what about the two sentences and four sources I had added in this version that Jamez42 also reverted (discussed above)? Do you think some of that should be restored as well taking into account any concerns Jamez42 has mentioned above? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I do agree with Jamez42 that the use of the word "crippling" is, while IMO appropriate, a little charged sounding for wikivoice. "Severe" or even just leaving out the modifier entirely would be an alternative. Also, Mark Weisbrot's last name is Weisbrot, not Weisenbrot. Otherwise the material seems fine and I don't think deletion is warranted since the problems seem easy to resolve by editing. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are to restore Venezuela to the main section, does that mean that we would be agreeing to include content starting from 2015? or only 2019? --Jamez42 (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Cmonghost: I made those changes you prescribed. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Jamez42: We include content where reliable sources mention U.S. government attempts at regime change, including: attempts to oust the government in power; influence elections; giving financial support to opposition groups; training guerillas of the opposition, providing soldiers, "advisers" and/or military equipment to the opposition; and various similar negative impacts on the current government to help undermine it and force it from power, etc.

The Venezuela section recently dated back to 2002, and I see no reason it should not, as long as the WP:RS articulates these kinds of things. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: You have mentioned examples which are the first time mentioned here, assuming we're considering Venezuela, namely training guerillas of the opposition, providing soldiers, "advisers" and/or military equipment to the opposition. Do you have sources for these events or are they general examples?

Besides verifying statements, we also have to consider if the constitute regime change and if they were promoted by the United States. As such, allegations and declarations should not be included.

The involvement of the US in the 2002 coup has been discussed at lenght in the United States involvement in regime change in Latin America article talk page. However I should offer some WP:RS to explain this further. Citing from its main article:

It was later revealed that the US had prior knowledge of the coup attempt and that members of the US government had ties to prominent participants in the coup.
(...)
However, the United States repeatedly informed the Venezuelan opposition that they would not be supported if there were a coup, warned the Chávez government of the plot and following the coup attempt, President George W. Bush denied the United States' involvement.

References

--Jamez42 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys I added a section on 2002 Venezuela, since it was with the recent section on Venezuela, and I see it has been deleted. I understand there is talk about how to add Venezuela to this, if you guys do decide to re add it make sure it is in a separate section from the main Venezuela section.14:21, 4 January 2020Eons of Mollusk (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Also ignore the first date and time on this message. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Stable version

I have restored a stable version based on the 28 December version of the article, where a Venezuela section remained to be agreed upon, per the RfC decision and to decide which version should be included. I plan to respond to the proposed content paragraph to paragraph, to argue why they should not be included.

Only to emphasize: I agree with including a section of Venezuela about 2019, whose proposed content can be expanded.

Regarding the 2002 coup, I'm seriously considering on including a timeline or an explanation on the events on 11 April, becaue clarifications seem to be needed. Groups "hostile", that disagreed or protest against Chávez are misunderstood to also have been involved in the coup against Chávez, without an explanation of how. The main confusion on this probably comes from the controversy surrounding the events that day, and to which extent were some groups involved. According to the government and its supporters, the coup was planned before the protests against Chávez on 11 April took place, based on versions such as journalist Otto Neustald's. Quoting from the main article, however:

According to Neustald, the message was recorded at least two hours before the killings started. However, this claim has never been proven and is contested by the rest of the reporters present, such as Javier Ignacio Mayorca, Mayela León and Adrián Criscaut, who affirmed that the military officers were informed of the death of Tortoza during the filming of the message.

References

The most accepted version on when the coup really happened was during El Carmonazo, the Carmona Decree, as I believe I have mentioned in previous discussions about coups, where nearly all of the government power branches were dissolved by Carmona. Only the military would have been involved, and even the civil society and military sectors were surprised the Carmona assumed the presidency, so given this it is really unfair, not to say inaccurate, to place responsability of the coup in the civil society.

Pinging editors involved in RfC, to learn about their thoughts @GPRamirez5: @Oska: @Jack Upland: @Rosguill: @Cmonghost: @NYCJosh: @Darouet: @Aquillion: @Adoring nanny: @ColumbiaXY: @MaoGo: @BobFromBrockley: @My very best wishes: --Jamez42 (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment re: 2002 coup: It's not up to us to decide whether it's "unfair" to place responsibility for the coup on civil society. Reliable sources state that CTV, which received funding from the US government, played a key role. See WP:RGW. From the New York Times:

Of particular concern is $154,377 given by the endowment to the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, the international arm of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., to assist the main Venezuelan labor union in advancing labor rights.

The Venezuelan union, the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, led the work stoppages that galvanized the opposition to Mr. Chávez. The union's leader, Carlos Ortega, worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who briefly took over from Mr. Chávez, in challenging the government.

The endowment also provided significant resources to the foreign policy wings of the Republican and Democratic parties for work in Venezuela, which sponsored trips to Washington by Chávez critics.

Moreover:

The Bush administration, which has made no secret of its disdain for Mr. Chávez — and his warm relations with nations like Cuba and Iraq — has turned to the endowment to help the opposition to Mr. Chávez.

Scholarly work agrees. There is no justification for not including the 2002 coup d'état. Including a coup on this page does not imply that the US orchestrated the coup or even that they were one of the primary forces involved. It only means that they were involved... which, in this case, they were, as stated in the reliable sources. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Can you provide reliable sources on how the CTV was involved in the coup? Or when do you consider that the coup started per se? That is the difference that I'm establishing, since as I have said many times before, opposing a government is not the same as actively helping to depose it. The WP:BURDEN lies on you to provide sources for this. To cite another example of Carmona's distance from the CTV: --Jamez42 (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Another mistake was that, although he had spent months working closely with labour leader Carlos Ortega, he appointed no labor leaders to his cabinet.

References

Two sources are included in the comment you just replied to. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That only mentions Carmona's involvement, not Ortega's. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Restoration again

@David Tornheim: You have restored the 2002 section of Venezuela without consensus or explaining the reasons, and this is not the first time that you do.[24] I have repeatedly explained why the involvement of the US is disputed, if any, and why the section should not be included. As such, I ask you to please remove the section and tell me if you have a reply to any of the points I have included above. As far as I can see, you have expressed that you agree with including the 2002 events, but have not explained why. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Closing talk sections

@Eons of Mollusk: Please don't close talk sections [25] the way you have been doing--especially as an involved editor. Many of your summaries are not accurate. Other than in Venezuela politics, I have never seen any editor attempt to close and halt discussion this way, other than non-involved editors closing move or RfC discussions It's unhelpful for a number of reasons: (1) The summaries are non-neutral (2) It halts discussion. I have seen other editors in the Venezuela topic area collapse discussions, which is even worse because (3) Search no longer works (4) Subsections no longer work.

You even changed another user's comment from a year ago [26]. For example, in this closure you incorrectly said the answer to the question has "no consensus" and is ""unresolved" in bold when that is not correct: The issue was resolved by this RfC that concluded in part, there is a consensus to add content regarding "United States involvement in regime change" in Venezuela.

I'm not opposed to making it easier for editors to find newer or older discussions or to having a bot archive discussions that are stale (maybe 90 days old). I would only support closes like these if: (1) Discussion is stale, maybe 90 months old. (2) The summary is accurate. (3) Readers are provided links to all related discussions both before and after. (4) It is closed by a non-involved editor by request to close by notice at the talk page section -or- everyone in the section to be closed is pinged and given time (maybe 14-30 days) to assess whether the proposed closing language is accurate. I think your goal is to help readers find their way to more recent discussion, how about instead (3) is more helpful. You can make your own summary at the bottom, but making it look like a non-involved admin. closed it is not okay IMHO. Note: I did not read all of the closes. Maybe some of them were accurate. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of the "closes" were more or less accurate, but Eons of Mollusk has no business exercising such ownership over the talk page. I don't know what was going through his head, but his behavior is reminiscent of a new, incompetent editor that notices for the first time that an RfC is formally closed by a non-involved editor and decides that it is his or her responsibility to "close" every single thread on a talk page. Eons of Mollusk was not a participant in many of these discussions, and his actual knowledge and understanding of the underlying disputes is very much in question. Because he has no authority to "close" these discussions, his comments were non-binding on all participants. I was reluctant to speak out first because Eons of Mollusk has a tendency to force his changes through by edit warring, but since you have taken a stand I would also like to reiterate to Eons of Mollusk that what he attempted to do simply is not done on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Alright so this is going to be a bit long. First the reason I closed so many sections yesterday was so I could signal the archive bots to archive the material. It has been months since anything has been archived from this page and the talk page is now becoming too large and will eventually become impossible to navigate. As well many of the items that were closed were old and hadn't been interacted with in months. Second I did try and make the summaries correct and neutral but if I got the summaries wrong that is for two reasons a) I was not there for them b) They were incredibly old, however I think this is less my fault and more the fault of the fact nothing has been archived in months. Despite that if the summaries were wrong I recommend that you fix them to be more accurate. Third in regards to describing items as "unresolved" I only did that in sections where the issue was discussed later, and I therefore assumed that it wasn't resolved. If I remember those sections were 1, 3, 4, and 17. Again if that was incorrect please fix them. Fourth if I made mistakes in how these were presented like you mention in 3 & 4 of the first paragraph that was an accident and I apologize. I'm not sure how that happened I just recommend that you fix it if you know the specifics. Fifth if your problem was procedure than I understand but I still stand by my decision in each closure of mine. They were done for a good reason and should be uncontroversial. This brings me to my Sixth point: I will now go through each closure below and justify my decision to close them. However I am going to ask that you remake some edits that I made that have nothing to do with the closures. I am not going to make those edits because I don't want to confuse you and than I accidentally get sanctioned because of said confusion.

Talk Section Closures:

1- The current talk around adding Venezuela is now in section 15. It only makes sense to close this section because the most recent talk on Venezuela is not there anymore. As well referring to this section only, I had made an edit to a comment by a user which you reference above. This was for grammatical reasons as when I read the statement it did not make sense so I tried to fix it. Could you please redo that edit?

2- This section has been dead for nearly a year and it appears the map issue was settled.

3- Same as 1 but switch 15 for 19.

4- Same as 1.

5- For this section while there was a decent amount of talk of which nothing came out, and its hasn't been interacted with for a long time.

7- When I looked at this section it appeared as though the issue was settled and the source was removed.

8- I did not close this article but I think it should be archived soon at some point given how long it's been around however I did not read this section so I can't tell whether the article was settled or not.

9- Same as 7 but the source was kept as opposed to removed.

10- I noticed in 17 that one editor mentions that this talk section was settled and having taken a look at it that appears to be true.

11- Same as 2 but in this case there was not a single response to the initial comment.

12- The Bolivian coup in 2019 was not added on this page and I assumed that the issue was discussed more in depth on other pages. Like 5 nothing came out of this and there has not been discussion in that section for a long time.

13- I was the original creator of this talk section because there was some worry over me adding Chad (1981-1982) onto the main page in regards to its sources. This was among my first edits. Given that I was the only one who wrote in it and no one else has responded since, I thought I had the authority to close it.

14- Same as 1 but switch 15 for 23.

15- I did not close this section but I made an edit around the spacing of something I wrote in this section. It might of been accidentally reversed and if it was, could you fix that?

16- When I looked at this it appeared that the issue of whether to use the term "orchestrated" had been resolved with the editors agreeing to use it.

17- Given that this lead to an editing dispute on another page that seems to have been settled I thought it was okay to close.

18- This links to the previously mentioned dispute, and given that's archived, I thought it was fair to close this section.

23- Since the dispute between me and other editors was resolved with an agreement to remove Australia (1975) and keep Zaire (1996-1997) (with some info added) I thought I had the authority to close it. As well the new more correct title I gave the section was removed, could you put it back?

24- Like 23 this was a dispute between me and other editors over Cambodia. I thought since I agreed that the Cambodian coup of 1970 had enough historical backing to stay I had the authority to close the discussion.

25- As well hopefully once this is all sorted out can we close this section (the one I am typing in) too?

Alright that's all I have to say for now. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of these discussions could have been archived without closure, as the discussion continues elsewhere. It is not usual to close them unless it is about some RfC, move request or go too off topic.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the automatic archive frequency is set to 1 year, that is a long time, it could be shortened, at least to half that.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Copying without attribution and misrepresented sources

In light of the discussion above regarding Eons of Mollusk's inexplicable attempt to unilaterally "close" every previous thread on this talk page, I would like to raise awareness about another aspect of this user's behavior. Eons of Mollusk is a very prolific editor—he is the number two contributor to both United States involvement in regime change and Russia involvement in regime change, adding over 100,000 bytes of content to the former and over 85,000 bytes of content to the latter, as measured by Wikipedia's internal tool. You might therefore conclude that Eons of Mollusk is a well-read expert in dozens of countries around the world and specifically the roles that the U.S. and Russia have played historically in influencing the internal affairs of those countries. However, a careful look at virtually any one of his edits makes it obvious that his contributions consist almost entirely of copying sources without attribution from elsewhere on Wikipedia, and then—crucially—adding his own summary of what those sources say. (Because he adds his own summary, he has not previously been called out for copying without attribution, as far as I can tell, but his original summary of sources that he has never actually read sometimes introduces significant errors.) His "Korean War" edit from little more than a week ago is a case in point: It seems to be impressively sourced at first glance, but the sources are all in different formats, the sfn sources are inaccessible, and Eons of Mollusk's summary is a bit sloppy, with easily-detected typos such as "advcned" and "armistace." (More glaringly, Eons of Mollusk describes the prelude to the Korean War as occurring during "the late 50's" rather than the late 1940s.) What happened here? Very simply, every single source in that edit was copied from our Korean War article, with Eons of Mollusk not bothering to import the bibliography for the sfn sources or attribute the content in his edit summary. What are "Millett 2007," "Chen 1994," "Barnouin & Yu 2006," and "Stokesbury 1990?" Eons of Mollusk himself may not know, but if you head over to Korean War (and specifically to the bibliography as it would have appeared to Eons of Mollusk) you can find out!

At best, there is an admittedly imprecise but not egregiously offensive "pop history" quality to Eons of Mollusk's edits, as seen with the following false but true-sounding statement: "Despite being ordered aginst doing so General Douglas MacArthur advcned up the 38th Parallel on the Penninsula and intended to end the Northern government." The "UN forces invade North Korea" section as it would have appeared to Eons of Mollusk gives a vastly different account of the decision-making process that led to the UN advance into North Korea, as does our UN offensive into North Korea article, suggesting that MacArthur was repeatedly told that the UN's ultimate objective was to reunite Korea under the leadership of Syngman Rhee (if possible, and subject to change based on conditions on the ground), that the initial advance into North Korea was led by South Korean forces, and that UN forces joined the offensive six days later after receiving UN authorization and in light of North Korea's refusal to surrender. Meanwhile, none of the citations copied by Eons of Mollusk were used on Korean War to substantiate an allegation that MacArthur defied a direct order not to invade North Korea; to the contrary, Stokesbury 1990 pp. 79–94 and p. 83 (refs 201 and 208 on Korean War, which Eons of Mollusk, oddly enough, failed to consolidate into a single reference) are only attached to milquetoast statements that "the ROK [South Korean military] advanced ... into North Korea" and "President Truman disagreed [with MacArthur], and ordered caution at the Sino-Korean border" (the border is between North Korea and China, so this doesn't imply a "disagreement" regarding the invasion of North Korea). Finally, the other source copied by Eons of Mollusk, Barnouin & Yu 2006 p. 144 or ref 202 as it would have appeared on Korean War at the time, merely establishes that "MacArthur made a statement demanding the KPA's [North Korea's] unconditional surrender." Truman fired MacArthur more than six months after the invasion of North Korea for other reasons that he enumerated at the time, yet Truman never alleged that the invasion of North Korea had been MacArthur's personal side project lacking official justification, although there may have been a temptation in certain U.S. political circles to scapegoat MacArthur for all of the setbacks in the war (which could partially explain Eons of Mollusk's confusion).

I intend to remove this distortion, but given that Eons of Mollusk's entire M.O. is copying citations without attribution and then summarizing them without reading them using his own words, I'm concerned that there could easily be a vast number of essentially fabricated citations or assertions that fail verification in virtually all of his edits, which is compounded by just how prolific he is. I don't expect this editor to stop or to heed my warning voluntarily, but I would strongly advise him to simply copy the summary along with the citation when moving text between articles and to attribute the content to the original article using an edit summary. There is simply no reason for him to be adding his own summary when he hasn't done the research. Furthermore, I am pinging Bumbubookworm, who previously called out Eons of Mollusk for misrepresenting another source that he copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia regarding the 1955 State of Vietnam referendum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Look @TheTimesAreAChanging: I edit both those pages to b/c I want to make them more consistent with other articles and not out of malicious intent. Here I'll give you list of the sections on both that I either added or heavily edited so you can get started: All pre-1887, 1900s: Cuba, Nicaragua; 1910s: Nicaragua, Germany, Austria-Hungary; 1940s: Costa Rica, Albania; 1950s: Korea, Iran (election specifically), first Cuba, Philippines, South Vietnam; 1960s: Vietnam, Chile, Congo, Cambodia; 1970s: Ethiopia-Zaire; 1980s: Chad, Nicaragua; 1990s: Both Iraq, Second Haiti, Zaire, 2000s: Iraq, Honduras. Keep in mind I just about always link to the main page in the topics as well. Right now here's a list of sections that should be considered for addition to the main page on here: The Communist Insurgency in Thailand (1965-1985), DMZ Confict (1966-1969), Guevara Insurgency in Bolivia (1966-1967), Philippines Communist Insurgency (1969-present), 1996 Israeli Election, 1996 Russian Election, 2016 Israeli Election. As well could someone review Haiti: 1991. For now I'll stop editing both those pages. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The Vietnam edits are pretty bad to say the least, and a recent addition to the Vietnam War article about Nixon and the Paris talks was undue weight. I hadn't gotten around to looking it at detail, but the sources that I skimmed about Nixon seemed out of whack. Also the bad writing gives misleading impressions (deliberate or not) Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the now-excised Aus/Whitlam section was absolutely embarrassing to Wikipedia, presenting stuff from a random website with a mishmash of transcripts jammed onto it, as synthesised fact, along with stuff from extremist sources such as John Pilger and Whitlam's own memoirs. Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I will accept some responsibility for possibly exacerbating the problems you describe above when I copyedited the section on Korea minutes after Eons of Mollusk added it. I introduced mention of George Kennan whose work I am familiar with because of a class I took on International relations (IR), where we studied his ideas and their long-term effect on U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War subsequent to WWII. I did not check the source to see if was mentioned. I am extremely confident that one of the sources says something of that nature, and if not, it shouldn't be hard to find. If pressed I only need dredge up my IR book and that would do the job. Please feel free to revert anything I changed that you believe is inaccurate.

Of course, none of us has to be a scholar to edit any article. If you think the writing has serious problems, please feel free to revert it, and explain what the problems are and how to fix them. Or better yet, just make WP:BOLD changes to address the problems. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

David Tornheim, I appreciate your coming forward; however, my sole frame of reference when drafting the comment above was the diff of Eons of Mollusk's original edit, and decidedly not any subsequent revisions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)