Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Mehdi Hasan article

I have restored the article deleted by Bobfrombrockley under the claim that it is an opinion piece. It was written by the senior columnist, Mehdi_Hasan--an investigative reporter--in a publication that is deemed by Wikipedians to be in the same category of reliability as the The New York Times. (see WP:RS/P). --David Tornheim (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

David see my question in WP:RSN on The Intercept, apparently columnist articles are opinion articles of The Intercept. Also most people agree that The Intercept needs attribution.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Okay, I added attribution as you requested with this edit. The discussion about The Intercept is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Intercept_and_politics (permalink). --David Tornheim (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed

@Jamez42: You added a factual accuracy is disputed tag to the article. Can you please explain exactly which facts are of concern? Is it the entire article or just some sections of the article? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Factual accuracy has been questioned a couple of times now in the talk page. While some of the concerns seem to have been solved ("Egypt 1952?", "Chad: 1981-1982"), others apparently haven't ("Scope (again)", "Iraq 1963" and "Batatu"). An overview of the sources content should be made, and adding a tag in each one of the sections would become too cumbersome, reasons why I included the tag. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, Factual accuracy has been questioned a couple of times now in the talk page

• Where? Is this just dont like it concern?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I said where just after that sentence: While some of the concerns seem to have been solved ("Egypt 1952?", "Chad: 1981-1982"), others apparently haven't ("Scope (again)", "Iraq 1963" and "Batatu") --Jamez42 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, yea but you havent cited any reliable source. You just dont like it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are challenging reliably sourced content then provide sources. You are not providing anything and just tagging articles you dont like.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith but telling me "I just don't like it". I did not go into details it is because other users already have in previous threads. If you want me to provide them you could have asked me instead of making accusations against me.

When adding the tag, I'm stating that there's a real possibility that content in the article does not reflect the references accurately, and there might even be original research. It doesn't have to do with having "reliable sources", it has to do with how their content is used in the article.

If needed, I can help to verify the information in the sources provided in order to remove the tag. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SharabSalam that the tag is not justified without WP:RS disputing the factual accuracy. [T]here's a real possibility that content in the article does not reflect the references accurately, and there might even be original research is not sufficient to justify the tag either. We need a specific examples of accuracy that is disputed. And if it is in only one section or only a few sections, the tag should be placed in that section(s) rather than challenging the accuracy of the entire article. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David Tornheim and SharabSalam. If no one minds, I'll remove this tag until a specific, current issue with the article or one of its sections has been raised. Such a tag should be raised by the person with the issue with the content, and the others haven't done that. Their discussions have also fallen dormant for over half a year. Also, "Scope (again)"/"Scope 2" doesn't fall under accuracy. There is a specific tag for that, {{Unfocused}}. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

2021 storming of the United States Capitol

This has been added and removed twice so far. I just wanted to check, but this clearly shouldn't be in this article, right? I think the US government's involvement in attempts to change its own regime is so obviously out of scope that this sort of thing shouldn't be mentioned. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon, correct, I think it clearly does not belong in the article. I'll probably edit the lead to make this a little clearer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What about Ukraine?

I was surprised to find that no mention is made of US interference in Ukraine, a source of much controversy during the Trump administration. Wouldn't US efforts to promote regime change in Ukraine qualify for inclusion on this list?

2600:1700:A060:1FE0:E872:1084:C8F4:354E (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Michael Eisenscher

If you have reliable sources to back it up, be bold and add it yourself. Oqwert (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is that regime change though? I think USA likes the current Ukranian government and is not trying to change them. Regime change would, of course, involve changing the regime. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Election interference

This is much more of an issue in the Russian involvement in regime change article, however is also an issue here. I am suggesting to remove examples of simple election interference from these articles, for example the 1964 Chilean election, because it does not count as regime change, and including them would go against the point of the articles. Many examples of US election interference are not even here anyway. Simply favouring and supporting a particular candidate or party in an election (in a democracy) is not an example of regime change, because the regime itself does not change. For the Russia article, I've seen the recent US elections get included for example, falsely implying that Trump winning in 2016 is an example of "regime change". There are already articles for foreign electoral interventions, it does not need to be here. Mellk (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

100% agree. Regime change means change of regime, e.g. from dictarship to democracy or from one kind of democracy to another. A democratically elected change of administration with the constitution and electoral system remaining unchanged is not regime change. I believe the two sentences in the lead about Foreign electoral intervention should be removed too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

First sentence, regime change definition, and scope of article

Hello all. I've made attempts to bring the definition of regime change in this article to be more in line with the formal definition of regime change, but I keep getting reverted. Here's our current definition.

• United States involvement in regime change describes actions taken by the United States government, both overt and covert, to alter, replace, or preserve foreign governments.

And here's definitions from 3 sources that disagree with "alter" and "preserve", and have a narrower scope.

• Wikipedia regime change article: Regime change is the replacement of one government regime with another.

• Oxford dictionary: the replacement of one administration or government by another, especially by means of military force

• Encyclopedia Britannica: 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.

I do think this article should be broadly inclusive. Any USA meddling with other governments qualifies, imo. Any regime change or attempted regime change should be included. I am even inclined to include election meddling, since countries should never interfere in other country's elections, even financially, and that is a type of nefarious meddling. But at the same time, I would also like to get the definition right. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novem Linguae (talk • contribs)

Concerns about original research and having a too broad definition hae been expressed in the past, and this still appears to be the case. Regardless of the outcome, the discussion should probably be retaken. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

NoonIcarus. Good point about original research. The standard of inclusion for anything in this article should probably be a reliable source specifically calling it "regime change". We may need to do an audit/cleanup to make sure that all listed incidents meet this criteria. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. I've recently started to go through and indicate the regime beforehand and afterwards and got up to the 1950s I think, but there are still no reliable sources describing these as instances of regime change, so there is a risk of OR/synthesis. To me, regime preservation is straightforwardly not regime change and outside the scope of the article, as with election interference. We discsued this three years ago, and all editors except one agreed the lead is too capacious, but this didn't feel like enough consensus to change a long-stable lead. We discussed it again one year ago, with all editors except one (a different one) arguing for tightening of scope[1] but no changes were made, possibly because the preservation version has been stable for a long time. Looking at those two discussions again, I think we already have consensus for tightening the lead, i.e. for this now-reverted edit. Adn then I think we need a proper audit of the contents to check we have an RS for regime change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not write the original sentence, but did one of the reverts. I had an issue with the exclusion of unwanted involvement (interference) from your edit and not the definition of "regime change" itself. I went ahead and edited the sentence to make it more clear. Oqwert (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why

I've placed two edits in now adding the Perry Expedition to Japan as an example of US regime change and I think it fits the definition perfectly. It was an attempt to alter the government via threat of military force. I'm happy for it not to be included in the article (undo all my edits if you want) but I don't really understand the logic behind not putting it there. Also, as for it being unsourced, there are a number of other areas which are unsourced. INFJMcLovin (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Altering government policy is not the same as overthrowing a government.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(apologies if I don't format this correctly I'm still new to this) As I understand it the page covers major alterations to governments by the USA and not just overthrows. The first line is "United States involvement in regime change describes actions taken by the United States government, both overt and covert, to alter, replace, or preserve foreign governments". I'll give up this fight to prevent an edit war and I leave it to judgement of other editors to see if its appropriate to include that historical moment. INFJMcLovin (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

INFJMcLovin. Hello friend. Thanks for your good faith edits. I started googling for "perry expedition" "regime change" and I wasn't able to find a good source that calls it regime change. For web, I saw some articles from FEE.com and medium.com, but those are coming up as "mixed factual reporting" on mediabiasfactcheck.com, which makes me think they aren't great sources. I also did a Google books search, didn't find any smoking guns there either. I think to avoid WP:OR, anything that we add to this article from now on should have a reliable source that specifically calls the incident "regime change". If you can find a good source that calls the Perry Expedition regime change, feel free to post it here and we'd be happy to take a look. I would love to include as much well-sourced regime change as possible in this article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Novem Linguae here. The preceding section on the talk page relates to this: if the article is on (successful or unsuccessful) changes of regime then the Perry Expedition seems to me to fall outside that scope, as its intention was to change an existing regime's policy without changing the regime. Thank you, though, INFJMcLovin for adding the main article tags to sections: I think that is a really good step towards ensuring each section belongs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs)

Russia / USSR 1919-1920

@My very best wishes: You claim, "‎1918–1920: Russia: ... restoration of Tsarist regime was not their operational goal (they were not monarchists)."

Rick Beyer (2008). The Greatest Stories Never Told. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-7621-0554-0. OL 16976178M. Wikidata Q106625568., "Revolutionary Cold War: Backing a monarchy ultimately leads to icy relations", p. 329, says,

World War I was barely over when President Wilson decided the United States should intervene in the Russian Civil War. He sent thousands of American troops to help overthrow the new communist regime under Lenin. Britain, France and Japan sent troops as well.

However, this book by Beyer is NOT a scholarly work. The main article on Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War#Allied concerns says:

while Soviet propaganda often portrayed Allied intervention as an alliance dedicated to crushing a nascent, worldwide communist revolution in the cradle, in reality the Allies were not particularly interested in intervention. While there were some loud voices in favour, such as Winston Churchill, these were very much in the minority. The main concern for the Allies was to defeat the German Empire on the Western Front.

My conclusion:

• The leaders of the Soviet Union through Nikita Khrushchev had personal memories of fighting the Allies during the Russian Civil War. He was succeeded by Leonid Brezhnev, who was born in 1906, then by Yuri Andropov, b. 1914, then Konstantin Chernenko, b. 1911. These latter three likely had personal memories of that Allied intervention -- and especially of the need to be wary of foreign efforts to overthrow their government.
• The Wikipedia article on the Russian Civil War says the Red army had 5.5 million troops vs. 1 million each in the White and Polish armies, 550,000 Germans, 70,000 Japanese, 50,000 Czechs, 58,000 Brits, 50,000 Romanians, and smaller numbers from other countries.
• Am I correct that Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia won independence from Russia in that process?
• I think it's important to create informed speculation about how history might have been different without the Allied intervention.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am not disputing any of this. But this is all already described on another big page, Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. What you are talking about belongs to that page about the Allied intervention. Here we just need to provide a very brief summary, specifically about the involvement of the US (the subject of this page) and was relatively small in scale (11,000). Speaking about their goals ("their" means US forces), I understand that was actually a support of "white forces", Kerensky, Czechoslovak Legion, etc. They did NOT represent the Russian Monarchy. Russian Monarchy was already dead. But if you want to fix something along these lines, you are welcome. P.S. There was no USSR in 1919-1920. It existed only from 1922. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia...". Yes, certainly, but that belongs to even more general page, Russian Civil War, and it is already included there. "I think it's important to create informed speculation about how history might have been different...". This is hard to say, but again, that would be for another page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Before accusing someone of "Follow", slandering me in the edit summary,[2] you should know that I am the main translator of this article into Italian. At least you should check the history of the article[3] and discussions[4] before accusing other editors. Indeed, judging by the facts you seem to be following me, as you have done in the past, jumping in the article just 6 days after my last edit[5] (please stop following me).
As for your edits, I am against all of them. You are practically omitting the real purpose of the intervention, which is how the United States wanted to implement a "regime change" (that is in the name of the article): "to overthrow the Bolsheviks". Removing terms like "invasion" also makes no sense. In those same articles, those "interventions" are referred to as "invasion" (about the British: Siberian intervention: Churchill's Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia, 1918-1920. Or North Russia intervention:"British diplomats had traveled to the city in preparation of the invasion"). It seems a way to soften the responsibilities of US intervention. Furthermore, removing that the intervention occurred together with other forces is useless, we are talking about a couple of lines in which the event is contextualized. The only fact that can be removed is this one: "but the Japanese military continued to occupy parts of Siberia until 1922 and the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925." because is only related to Japan. For the rest I am in favor of a big revert.--Mhorg (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No, the purpose is included: "to support White movement". If want to elaborate on this (to support Czechoslovak Legion or other specifics), you are welcome. As about terminology (invasion, intervention, etc.), I am simply using same titles as in the linked pages. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources cited at Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War make clear that the primary objective of the Allies in general and the U.S. in particular was not in fact to overthrow the nascent Bolshevik regime. While influencing the direction of the Russian Civil War in favor of the White movement may have been a decidedly secondary consideration amidst the overarching focus on defeating Germany and achieving victory in World War I, it was not an outcome that the Allies were willing to expend considerable resources to achieve, as evidenced by the relatively few casualties either inflicted or received by Allied forces during the campaign. I concur with My very best wishes that the language (re-)introduced by Mhorg here constitutes POV-pushing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not my POV, there are scholarly sources who argue that the real US goal in Russia was the "overthrow of the revolution".[6] So, each point of view should be represented. It is also interesting to note that in the same article "United States and the Russian Revolution" are listed the reasons behind the decision of Woodrow Wilson to intervene: "to facilitate the safe exit of a stranded Czech Legion from Russia, to safeguard allied military stores located in northern Russia, to put pressure on the Germans with the potential of an eastern front, and to facilitate self-determination with the hope of the creation of a democratic Russia [...] Wilson preferred the creation of a democratic government in Russia. This was seen when American troops, specifically the 339th Infantry Regiment, found themselves in routine engagements with Bolshevik forces in an effort to support Russian revolutionaries.". So, yes, his goal was to "to overthrow the Bolsheviks".--Mhorg (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course they acted against the Bolshevik regime and to support White movement. I never said they did not. That would be ridiculous. I am only saying they had no orders to restore Russian Monarchy. Kerensky and most of the Whites did not represent Russian Monarchy. "The invading forces mission included the toppling of the new Soviet government and the restoration of the previous Tsarist regime" [7]. This is incorrect. "the creation of a democratic government in Russia" did not mean restoration on Monarchy. Did they have specifically an order of "toppling of the new Soviet government"? Well, whatever specific operational orders they had, this can be cited from RS. For example, your citation, i.e. "to facilitate the safe exit of a stranded Czech Legion from Russia, to safeguard allied military stores located in northern Russia, to put pressure on the Germans with the potential of an eastern front, and to facilitate self-determination with the hope of the creation of a democratic Russia" would be just fine. My very best wishes (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

[8] - what chapter and which pages in the book you used as a reference? I do not see it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, page numbers are not shown in this preview. And also this new version of Google books I think it has bugs, because it has problems highlighting the searched phrases. Try clicking on that highlight in the bar on the right, or stop at the page that begins with "(34, 51). The US founding document, the Declaration of Indepence...". The part is on the bottom of that page.--Mhorg (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Could not find it. What chapter and who is the author of the chapter? I am sure there are other books dedicated specifically to this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The text is there, this is the exact quote: "Furthermore, in 1918 Wilson sent 13,000 US troops to aid the 'White' side of the Russian civil war in seeking to overthrow the revolution".[9] The is also another interesting recent scholarly source that better describe the pro-Democracy crusade of Wilson (unfortunately is a preview)[10]: "Wilson opposed the Bolsheviks, hoping to replace them with a more democratic government".--Mhorg (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I propose to change the name of the article

Wouldn't it be better to rename the article "United States meddling in foreign policy" or something like that? I believe it is much more accurate this way.--Mhorg (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "meddling" is a very encyclopedic term. "Regime change" is very specific and a lot of the article covers things that don't really fall into that category, so that's a good case for a name change. But the alternatives might lead to excessive bagginess, as it would be hard to find a tight enough term. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps simply "United States interference in foreign governments" would be a better choice? Oqwert (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Oqwert, your proposal seems better.--Mhorg (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good option. On one hand it could help to broaden the scope of the article, but on the other hand care should be taken to avoid original research or fringe content, just like currently. A distinction should be drawn between regular foreign relations and active intrusion, which is why "interference" sounds like a good choice of words. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier "regime change" is quite specific which is why is makes a good title for this page. Making the article broader by changing its name to "United States interference in foreign governments" would not allow proper coverage of the many examples of that title. A new article covering non-regime change interference would be a better way of dealing with the issue. Items from this current article which don't fit into the "regime change" subject could then be moved to the new article. In short, US interference is too big a subject to be covered by one article. Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In support of what I said above the "readable prose size" of the current article is 125 kB (20406 words). Our policy states that articles having a readable prose size of more than 100 kB should "almost certainly be divided" WP:SIZERULE. It would not be a good idea to broaden the subject of the article when it is already too large. Burrobert (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the argument, it is clear that an exception will have to be made about the size of the article, as the State in question has carried out many such actions in the past years, and will most likely continue to do so in the next few years. I think also that "United States interference in foreign governments" covers better all the subjects in the article.--Mhorg (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. A split would probably need to take place in this case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Renaming the article is a very good idea. "Regime change" is actually a phrase that only became popular after George Bush Jr.'s relevant declarations. It's ahistoric to apply this term to all these events, and I think it also violates the Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy. E.g., when we now even see that some users suggest introducing some coverage of the US involvement in the Russian Civil War to this article, then no, this shouldn't be labelled as "regime change" efforts.Potugin (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Impact section

Can we remove the section Impact? It seems too ambitious for this already ambitious article. It may lead to many opinion articles mesh together that discuss many topics and many different periods without any particular focus or consensus between them. --ReyHahn (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree; the article is already too long at the moment, so the removal of the section could help with this, even if a small step, or at least prevent it to keep growing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

El Salvador and other human rights abuse mentions.

Why is El Salvador civil war here? The paragraph makes no mention of regime change here, which is defined as participation or interference, both overt and covert, in the replacement of foreign governments. It should be completely removed. There is also excessive detail about atrocities of governments backed by the US. This article is not about US support for governments fighting rebels and the atrocities those regimes did. The parts about Chad, Bolivia and Chile go into detail about abuses by this governments even years after the actual regime changed which is not what this article is about. On the other hand the article doesn't describe in detail the abuses by regimes the US toppled or tried to like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist China, North Korea, Trujilo, Ethiopia or Saddam. The Indonesia mass killings section has more detail about military atrocities than about specific detail on US involvement in regime change. The Zaire Shaba 1 and 2 sections should probably also be removed as they are about the US supporting a government against rebels and not about regime change. GelShick92 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The section 1961–1975: Laos should also be removed because it, like other sections, is about support for a government fighting rebels. And for some reason half of the paragraph is dedicated to opium production. GelShick92 (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have repeatedly argued this article contains too much. I agree the El Salvador and Zaire sections should go. Chad could be trimmed. Bolivia 1971 and Chile look fine to me though, and I think Laos fits as US supported a counter-coup. I don't think we need more details about human rights abuses; we just need a brief description of what sort of regime was in place before and after. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree in general it should all be trimmed. Laos 1960 should stay but the separate 1961 to 1975 Laos section should be removed because it's about the US backing the government against rebels and another country, and half of this section is about opium. Other sections like Yemen, Venezuela, Indonesia, Angola, Congo Crisis and Cambodia ought to be cut down. 1965–1966: Dominican Republic section is questionable to include because the US intervened to prevent rebels from taking power although the rebels were supporting the previously overthrown leader. I don't think more detail on human rights abuses is needed on regimes deposed or supported by the US. It needs to be cut down because there is undue mention of it in comparison to mention of actual US actions regarding regime change which is what the article needs to focus on. Uruguay 1973 needs removing. It's a blank section and there's apparently zero US involvement according to the page. GelShick92 (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about 1950–1953: Korea (which was a military intervention but not a regime change), 1953–1958: Cuba (prevention of regime change), 1958: Lebanon (ditto), and 1979–1993: Cambodia (ditto). BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The military campaign of mass killings in 1965-66 Indonesia was the regime change operation. As the text says, to goal was to annihilate Sukarno's base of support, which allowed for him to be toppled.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Those should probably be removed also if they don't apply to what this page is about. The mass killings in 1965-66 Indonesia section doesn't need to be removed, it could be just trimmed a bit like the rest of the article needs. GelShick92 (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed the section on Indonesia 1965. Superfluous information not relevant to the topic of this article has been removed. I believe this should be adequate.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed El Salvador and Shaba as agreed upon as a start. Next, some of the other sections mentioned should be completely removed also and others trimmed like Indonesia was. GelShick92 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine section

A new section was recently added regarding the 2014 conflict which led to the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, and while it obviously needs expansion beyond a single sentence, I'm not sure if the sources currently used to support the claim fall under WP:NPOV, and many seem to more be op-eds than documents of US interference in Ukraine. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, none of the opinion sources cited by the IP user are reliable (or even usable) for factual claims. Reverted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

East Timor

I think the whole of the current second paragraph about East Timor should be deleted. Obviously US involvement in the Indonesian state's brutal occupation is an important topic, and we need to ensure this detail is included in our Indonesian occupation of East Timor article, but this article is about US involvement in regime change, and the paragraph has nothing to do with that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The relevant questions are:

• Was a group was in control of East Timor at the time of the invasion?
• Was the US involved in removing that controlling group?

From our article on the Indonesian invasion of East Timor:

"By the end of August 1975, the UDT remnants were retreating toward the Indonesian border. A UDT group of nine hundred crossed into West Timor on 24 September 1975, followed by more than a thousand others, leaving Fretilin in control of East Timor for the next three months. "

"Such considerations became overshadowed by Indonesian and Western fears that victory for the left-wing Fretilin would lead to the creation of a communist state on Indonesia's border that could be used as a base for incursions by unfriendly powers into Indonesia, and a potential threat to Western submarines".

There is a section that details US involvement in the Indonesian invasion of east Timor. Some excerpts:

"On the day before the invasion, Ford and Kissinger met with Indonesian president Suharto. Documents released by the National Security Archive in 2001 revealed that they gave a green light for the invasion".

"The US played a crucial role in supplying weapons to Indonesia. ... In total, the United States furnished over $250,000,000 of military assistance to Indonesia between 1975 and 1979".

"The CAVR stated in the "Responsibility" chapter of its final report that US "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation" of East Timor between 1975 and 1999. The report (p. 92) also stated that "U.S. supplied weaponry was crucial to Indonesia's capacity to intensify military operations from 1977 in its massive campaigns to destroy the Resistance in which aircraft supplied by the United States played a crucial role." "

Burrobert (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be almost entirely removed and maybe replaced with a line stating that the US continued to fund Indonesia during the occupation and insurgency and also note that the occupation lasted until 1999. GelShick92 (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also mention:

• that Fretilin was in control of East Timor when Indonesia invaded
• that the US feared a Fretilin communist government on Indonesia's border
• that the US feared a Fretilin government was a potential threat to US submarines
• that the US gave Indonesia the green light for its invasion of East Timor
• the extent of US military assistance to Indonesia and that most weapons used by Indonesia during its invasion and occupation were supplied by the US
• that US "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation" of East Timor between 1975 and 1999.

Burrobert (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I gather, it has been decided that the format should not include preservation of regimes, only changes. According to this, the section should be removed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The US did not "preserve" Fretilin's control of East Timor. It assisted Indonesia in removing Fretilin from power. Burrobert (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Broadly agree with Burrobert. I think make sure existing first para covers that, but remove the second para that covers longer occupation period and make sure no more than a sentence strays beyond the immediate invasion (regime change) period. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• it has been decided that the format should not include preservation of regimes

That is not correct. Experts and Reliable sources on "regime change" include regime preservation in their definitions. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

My sense is that the change of regime from Fretelin to Indonesia constitutes a regime change, but that once it is established any support for counter-insurgency (the topic of the second para) is about regime preservation. My strong view is regime preservation is outside the scope of this article. (There are probably countless examples of the US involving itself in counter-insurgency operations which we don't and shouldn't cover here.) Our article on regime change very straightforwardly says Regime change is the forcible or coerced replacement of one government regime with another. Regime change may replace all or part of the state's most critical leadership system, administrative apparatus, or bureaucracy. Doesn't mention regime preservation. When this was raised in 2018, this article's lead mentioned regime preservation but there was consensus to tighten it. However, this was not actioned. When it was in 2020, it led to heated discussion which I believe again resulted in a consensus to narrow the scope to actual regime change. It was raised again earlier this year, inconclusively. I'm not sure when the current lead was brought it, but it seems to me every time it is raised a minority of editors believe the scope of this article should include regime preservation. While two sources have been shown to define change more capaciously, most academic writers on regime change use it to mean a change of regime. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Haiti

• "In June 2004, the president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from office by the rebels, and flown away from Haiti by U.S. military/security personnel, preventing him from finishing his second term. Aristide afterwards claimed that he had been "kidnapped" by U.S. forces and stated that the United States had orchestrated a coup d'état in Haiti".
• "US Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), along with Aristide family friend Randall Robinson, reported that Aristide had told them (using a smuggled cellular phone), that he had been forced to resign and abducted from the country by the United States. He claimed to be held hostage by an armed military guard".
• "President Aristide replied: "No, I didn't resign. What some people call 'resignation' is a 'new coup d'état,' or 'modern kidnapping.'" "
• "Many supporters of the Fanmi Lavalas party and Aristide, as well as some foreign supporters, denounced the rebellion as a foreign controlled coup d'état orchestrated by Canada, France and the United States to remove a democratically elected president".

From The Economist:

• "But, having lost the support of America—once his protector—Jean-Bertrand Aristide was bundled on to a plane by American guards on Sunday February 29th".
• "The next day, his fate seemed to be sealed when America's secretary of state, Colin Powell, made it clear that he had come round to France's point of view".
• "Mr Bush's Democratic opponents are accusing him, variously, of either neglecting Haiti or of meddling in its affairs by orchestrating a coup. Perhaps more awkward for Mr Bush is the stinging criticism of America's actions by Haiti's neighbours: Caricom's chairman, the Jamaican prime minister, P.J. Patterson, deplored what he called Mr Aristide's “removal” and the failure of the “international community” to prevent this. He also questioned the legality of the American-backed move to instal Mr Alexandre as president ".

Burrobert (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

☝ (⚆ _ ⚆) ☝ Burrobert (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The point still stands that most of this statements are allegations and statements, rather than facts of involvement. It remains unclear what role did the US play at the protests that made the president resign, if any, and keeping this content would be problematic both for its length in an article already tagged for it as to keep a low bar on the standard that the content should have to be included --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Burrobert is correct. Any of this information can be added. It is in reliable sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone should add China, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Haiti, Bolivia in 2010's and 2020's [unsigned comment posted 2021-09-25T19:37:19 by user:80.217.107.22]

Bolivia

The accusations of US involvement in the Bolivian political crisis appear to come mainly from Mark Weisbrot and Evo Morales, and the allegations regarding lithium extraction border on fringe. WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:COUP are particularly good essays explaining why there needs to be further support from references about this reported involvement; additionally, the issue has already been brought up in the talk page and there doesn't appear to be much support for its inclusion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely it should be removed if not detailed US involvement is being claimed, specially if there is no claim from a third party. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Some sources and quotes:

• Bolivia is but the latest of a long line of thriving, stable democracies destroyed with the support if not the outright participation of the U.S. government, while jingoistic media figures disseminated the propaganda used to justify it all.

What makes the coup in Bolivia and its aftermath so worthwhile to explore is not just the inherent importance of Bolivia itself: a country of 11 million people with a rich and unique ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, as well as an ample supply of the now-vital resource of lithium. It is also instructive because of how U.S. discourse evolved in support of the coup ...

• The recent ouster of Bolivian President Evo Morales has sparked plenty of theories, especially on the left. One of the most prominent has been the idea that the military’s intervention is a coup intended to ensure U.S. control of a critical global resource: lithium.

That’s part of a tradition that sees U.S. foreign policy as being essentially about controlling natural wealth by any means necessary—one rooted in real American practices, from the deployment of U.S. Marines in defense of the United Fruit Company’s interests in Central America to President Donald Trump’s repeated orders to troops to protect oil, not Kurds, in Syria. But in this instance, the idea, heavily touted in the online left-wing media and by the occasional politician, is fundamentally mistaken.

• But, in fact, like the 1953 coup in Iran or the slew of other coups that the US has supported, funded or organised in the last seven decades, at stake was the control and exploitation of scarce natural resources — in this case Bolivia’s reserves of lithium.
• Just under a year after Evo Morales’s government was ousted by U.S.-backed far-right forces, his Movement Toward Socialism, or MAS, party looks almost certain to take back power after Sunday’s election.

Tesla executive Elon Musk—whose renewables empire sources lithium mostly from Australia, not Bolivia—added to theories about a potential lithium coup this summer by tweeting, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”

Burrobert (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Two of those quotes seem like non-noteworthy opinion pieces (is Ken Livingstone an expert on Bolivia?). The other two just say there is a fringe theory about US involvement in a lithium coup. This is an already encyclopedia article about a quarter of a millennium of history and it doesn't need this kind of speculative detail. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The quotes served two purposes:

• To show that US involvement in the Bolivian coup has been mentioned in multiple sources. This was in response to the statement that accusations of US involvement "come mainly from Mark Weisbrot and Evo Morales". Greenwald says the coup was carried out "with the support if not the outright participation of the U.S. government". Livingstone says it is one of the many coups "the US has supported, funded or organised". Aronoff says Morales was "ousted by U.S.-backed far-right forces".
• To show that the connection between the coup and lithium is not a fringe theory. Greenwald suggests there may be a connection. He mentions the "the inherent importance of Bolivia" and the "now-vital resource of lithium". Foreign Policy says the idea that the coup was connected to lithium is "heavily touted in the online left-wing media and by the occasional politician". Although, Foreign Policy says there is no connection, the article does show that it is not a fringe idea. Livingstone says "at stake was the control and exploitation of scarce natural resources — in this case Bolivia’s reserves of lithium". Then there is Musk's famous tweet about couping whomever he wants. There is no definitive evidence that there was a connection between the coup and lithium, but it is a noteworthy theory which has been discussed widely.

Burrobert (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The bolivia section should probably be removed. Details on US involvement are quite fringe. This section is currently overwhelmingly not about US involvement. GelShick92 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree the section should either be removed or heavily trimmed. At the very least, the claims and counterclaims about fraud in the 2019 election (and also the 2020 election) are irrelevant to the topic of this article and could go. I don't know why Greenwald or Aronoff would be due in this very general article. Musk seems irrelevant: this is not an article about Elon Musk's involvement in regime change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The section was added not long ago, on 10 August. Seeing how disputed it is, and since it has already been removed when first added months ago, I'm removing the section. Like it has been established here, it should no be re-added until there is significant proof of involvement in the event, the main topic of this article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Splitting article?

Should we split this article into three parts (maybe three separate interconnected articles):

1. Incidents where US involvement in regime change was solidly established at the time.
2. Incidents where US involvement was real but denied at the time. This category should include both the date for the initiation of the event and the later date at which US involvement was solidly documented.
3. Incidents where US involvement has been alleged by reasonably reliable sources like The Intercept, The Guardian, Mark Weisbrot, etc., but not confirmed by credible sources. This category would EXCLUDE cases where leaders like Evo Morales claim US involvement, because they clearly have conflicts of interest in making such allegations whether they exist or not.

Then someone competent with censored data analysis could analyze dates from "2" and "3" to estimate a posterior probability that solid documentation for US involvement will eventually appear.

Virtually every major power, and probably nearly all minor powers as well, keep secrets. They typically justify keeping those secrets to protect "national security". From what I've seen, it seems that the primary reason in the vast majority of cases is to protect incumbents from their domestic challengers, NOT to protect the nation against interference by a foreign power.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestion has some merit. It may run into the same problems though. Editors may then argue over which sources are reliable in determining which category a US intervention falls into. Test the consensus by trying to map out a framework on talk before implementing your plan. Btw we were not relying only on Morales' opinion about the coup in Bolivia. Regarding states keeping secrets, the Wikileaks publications bear out your point about the reason why states classify documents. In the case of the US, classification of documents was generally to protect the state apparatus from what it considers its main enemy - US citizens. Burrobert (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Others may disagree with your characterization of why governments maintain secrets. And even some who agree with you may feel that Wikipedia should make clear distinctions regarding what has been clearly established and what has only been widely speculated by otherwise normally credible sources.

Some of what we might want to do in this area might be forbidden on Wikipedia as original research. Fortunately, Wikiversity supports original research. We could do it there. After we have some serious results, we might be able to get a description thereof published in a serious refereed academic journal, which could then be cited in this and possibly other articles on Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from DavidMCEddy, but I agree with Burrobert that it might create as many problems as it solves. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

More sources

There are indeed sources that indicate there was US involvement in Bolivia's regime change, along with several LATAM countries

[11]

According to the Argentinian newspaper El Orsai the CIA station in La Paz instructed the Chief of Argentine Intelligence Agency (AFI, by its abbreviation in Spanish) in Bolivia, José Sanchez, to support the gathering of information on Evo Morales and his administrations; and all Cuban, Venezuelan and Nicaraguan officials residing in Bolivia, including diplomats. In order to comply with the above José Sánchez not only used his agents in the country, but also requested the support of representatives in Brasil, Colombia and Perú. Documents from the Argentine embassy in La Paz show details of a meeting in July 2019 where Deputy Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere of the United States Kevin Michael O’Reilly warned that Evo would likely win the presidential election, and asked for OAS, the EU, Brazil, Argentina and Peru to question the transparency and legitimacy of the elections. One of the most interesting passages of the document says that the Bolivian political scene is dependent on what happens in Venezuela, adding to growing evidence of a wider plan to destabilise the regional left. Evo Morales’ trips abroad were also analyzed, and Mr O’Reilly pointed out that there was concern about the growing rapprochement between Morales and the Russian government.

[12]

IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to overstate the importance of the OAS accusations in driving Morales from his own country and, with no democratic mandate, shifting power in lithium-rich Bolivia to the white, Christian, U.S.-subservient right. While critics had also accused Morales of improperly seeking a fourth term despite constitutional term limits, Bolivia’s duly constituted court had invalidated those term limits (much the way that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg induced the City Council to overturn a term limit referendum so he could seek a third term), leaving anti-Morales outside agitators, such as the OAS and U.S. officials, to rely instead on claims of election fraud. On the day the preliminary OAS report was released, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cited it both on Twitter and on the official State Department website to demand new elections

[13]

Several of the plotters discussed flying hundreds of foreign mercenaries into Bolivia from a U.S. military base outside Miami. These would join forces with elite Bolivian military units, renegade police squadrons, and vigilante mobs in a desperate bid to keep the country’s largest political movement from returning to power. The phone calls, along with leaked emails discussing a mass deployment of hired guns to coincide with the elections, reveal how Bolivia could have seen fresh bloodshed late last year. Two U.S. military sources confirmed that the Special Operations commands that they work for had gotten wind of the Bolivia coup plot.

[14]

According to investigators, Murillo, Méndez and another unnamed co-conspirator in the Defense Ministry helped a Florida-based company obtain a $5.6 million contract to supply tear gas and non-lethal equipment to the Áñez government. The company was allegedly owned by Bryan Berkman, a dual Bolivian-American national who purchased the tear gas in Brazil for a much-smaller sum of $3.3 million, according to an affidavit from a Department of Homeland Security agent that accompanies the complaint. Part of the profits allegedly were used to coordinate the bribe payments, some of which were to be paid from a delivery of $700,000 in cash to Bolivia. Loganmac (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I see discussion above about Greenwald being DUE or not. For once, he wrote this on The Intercept, which is an WP:RS, and two he's dealt with Latin American politics for most of his life as he has settled in Brazil for decades, most notably, the Vaza Jato story. Loganmac (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Based on the paragraphs quoted, without looking at articles in depth: First source, Brasilwire, allegations are not of involvement in regime change but (a) allegations of fairly routine monitoring of rival foreign agents in Bolivia, and (b) very vague allegations about diplomatic pressure on the OAS to question the transparency and legitimacy of elections that might not have been actually transparent or legitimate. Due in the article about the Bolivian crisis, but not in this article about a quarter millennium of US involvement in regime change. Second two sources, The Intercept, are also undue: first boils down to Pompeo tweeting about the OAS report, while the second reports stuff that didn't happen but which Bolivian right-wingers wanted to happen. Fourth paragraph is a strong source, AP, but it's not about US state involvement in regime change; it's about a corrupt Bolivian right-wing politician being investigated by the US state for wrong-doing he engaged in with US private companies. I can't imagine a form of words that would cite these articles that would add anything to our article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Nature of regimes removed

I am restoring the long-standing mention of whether the heads of states deposed were democratically elected, removed without explanation by Unreal7. If we are talking about regime change, it matters what sort of regime was removed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't me, Bob. Unreal7 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry Unreal7! BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@BobFromBrockley: Hi! I removed the characterizations mostly per WP:LABEL. I wanted to thank you for linking the respective elections that originated these governments, I have included a different wording to address the issue but to reflect their nature. Please let me know if there are changes to be made. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Honduras

The current Honduras section is contradictory, since as it is stated in the same place, the Obama administration condemned the coup. This is particularly troublesome if the rationale for inclusion is precisely Clinton's position, and that the State Department was sympathetic for it. Even if this was the case, as it has been stated several times, support is not the same as involvement. It states that Zelaya was ousted by the Honduran military, not the American, and the section fails to explain the involvement, if any, that the US had in the events. The section should be removed for these reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If our definition of "involvement" is widened to include "condemning but not stopping" or "talking to the new government at some point afterwards" then the article could become endless. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it would essentially include most bilateral relations of the United States. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "too long to read comfortably" cleanup note

The article has been split up into as many subheadings as could reasonably be expected, and as I see it, splitting the article into multiple articles would only be a hindrance to navigation and readability. This is an article that summarizes a large amount of separate events which took place across the globe and over 200+ years; I think we have to accept that some articles will simply be long, and that if formatted properly, they can still be readable. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It could be rewritten as WP:Prose with major events and a List of United States involvement in regime change could be created for the rest.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree, remove the cleanup note. This is a long article, but despite that fact, its individual sections are still readable. It has been divided as much as we can divide it. It is still formatted properly. Creating new seperate articles may actually hinder the readability of this topic as a whole - and regardless, deciding which events qualify as 'major' enough for a prose summary will be subjective and some important subjects may slip through the cracks. India.OHC (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Plus the length isn't really Wikipedia's fault.

The article is a little more than 100 kb of readable prose, if should most certainly be divided per the WP:SIZERULE.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

How would you recommend dividing it? My only thought is by era/significant time period. India.OHC (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree to remove the note. The events are many and they are all best summarized. We have to make an exception in this case, I don't see how else to manage such a content.--Mhorg (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It can be divided, either by era or region.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

We would be dividing the article into at least 5 seperate pieces. I think potentially this would decrease the content's ability to be searched for too much to make this a viable split. India.OHC (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The current version of the article is over 100 KB of content long, which means that this is still an issue. Content could be merged into existing articles, if a split is not feasible. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, remove the cleanup note. I just read the article. It is about a unified theme, which belongs together. The length of the article itself emphasizes a point -- the extent of US regime change. Splitting it up into 5 separate articles would weaken that point. Also, having a single article on one page makes it easier to understand the common patterns that unify each of the regime changes and compare them -- such as the brutality, and violation of international law, over and over again. Merging the content into existing articles would destroy the unity of this theme. A reader would have to look all over Wikipedia to recover that information. --Nbauman (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: WP:SIZERULE:

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

The question is whether this is one of those occasional exceptions which are best treated with common sense. I think it is. --Nbauman (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

sanctions against Venezuela

@Unreal7: I've reverted your recent changes regarding whether, "Trump's sanctions had caused over 40,000 deaths in Venezuela since 2017, and that more than 300,000 Venezuelans were at risk because of lack of access to medicines or treatment" for two reasons:

1. Most importantly, you deleted only one side of the issue, suppressing the opinion of a second seemingly credible source. You retained the perspective of the Center for Economic and Policy Research but deleted the one by the Brookings Institution.
2. Secondly, the 300,000 number did, in fact, appear in the expanded PDF version associated with the original citation.

I respectfully disagree with your claim that the section you deleted was "not needed".

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Both the information about the CEPR and the Brookings Institution constitute WP:COATRACK, which is particularly troublesome given the length concerns of the article. The content does not explain how this consequences are regime change, nor does it seem relevant to establish its involvement, and the section already makes mention of sanctions that have said goal. I have removed the content for this reason. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

And what's wrong with the Bolivia section? I cite two other new sources.[15][16] Unreal7 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Unreal7: Hi! Sorry, just seeing this, many thanks for your comment. The main issue is that most accusations of helping with the crisis in the country are directed towards the OAS and its report, but not towards the United States, and this seems to be the case again with both references, as they don't appear to accuse the United States specifically. You can see the section I started below for more context. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll be bold and remove the section about Venezuela. When the section was first added by a dynamic IP, concern was expressed that the addition was motivated by WP:RECENTISM. Three years later, in an article that is mostly about coups and invasions, not any regime change has happened in the country and the United States has not been involved in any attempt thereof, as the section itself states.

The section already mentions contradictory content regarding involvement in this venture, or even its intent, including that tn December 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the United States did not plan a military intervention in Venezuela; while saying that "we have said that all options are on the table", he also said that "we have learned from history that the risks from using military force are significant", as well as Michael Shifter's statement, president of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, that "military action of the United States against Venezuela would be contrary to the movements of the Trump administration to retire troops from Syria or Afghanistan." Not only that, but when María Corina Machado, leader of right-wing party Vente Venezuela, stressed the importance of a military option, Elliott Abrams, the United States Special Representative for the country, described María Corina's proposal as "surrealist", even going it as far as to mock and compare it to Gabriel García Márquez's magic realism.

The closest statements supporting this is AFP's memo regarding the divertion of US funds to Guaidó's "interim government, including office supplies; there has been a long standing consensus that support is not the same as involvement, particularly when it isn't clear how a regime change is taking place. This support is more akin to a debate club or model of United Nations for Guaidó, contrary to programs such as Syria's Timber Sycamore, where there has been explicit funding to weaponry and training to armed rebel groups.

At the end, this sabre-rattling and empty threats appear to have had a more domestic interest, rather than a foreign one, aimed at winning votes from the Cuban and Venezuelan diaspora in the swing state of Florida and that never followed through (and apparently never will). As such, the section should be removed. On top of it all, the article still has length issues and could benefit from the removal of a section that borders on the fringe. I'm open to any comments regarding this change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I support that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll make a follow up comment and rectification, because I feel it is in order: while I was trimming content in an effort to remove the maintenance tag, I quoted the WP:COUP. For some reason I mistook that it was related to involvement in such of an event, when it really focuses on the manner of how to describe events. Besides that, despite the gigantic scale of the changes done, I hope overall it has managed to improve the article. Best regards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Very long" tag

Hcoder3104, a self-described "Socialist, Anti-imperealist [sic] and kinda a Trotskyist, Castroist, and Eurocommunist" who "knows that capitalism has killed 1.5 billion people and that it is incompatible with democracy" and whose "political views may come out during editing and disscussions [sic]"— not that there's anything wrong with that—has decided to tag this article as "very long" in order to "[point] out the extent of United States involvement in regime change". However, NoonIcarus recently removed the tag after trimming approximately 17,000 bytes of content. Hcoder3104 has never edited this article previously and has not explained his rationale for reinstating the tag here on the talk page, as required; his edit summary suggests that he is confused about the very purpose of maintenance tags, which relates to article improvement, not making a point—as well as the likelihood that reinstation might result in additional content being deleted in order to satisfy an arbitrary "length" objection, which I assume is not his goal. Regardless, in the absence of a policy-based rationale for keeping the tag, it should be removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The coup in Ukraine

This overview is missing a chapter about the USA funded coup in Ukraine 2014. It is a present conflict with great public interest. Also it should mention provocations against Russia regarding US funding of military power of the present regim in Ukraine, sanctions against and confiscation of Russian assets in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.70.50.142 (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The coup in Brazil

Section is missing, about how CIA funded Michel Temer as a CIA Informant/Spy, Temer job was to describe how the impeachment was going, to recruit congressperson votes by illegal payments, and to leave Vice-President and become President after the impeachment; Temer also destroyed Brazil's economy after the fact, by selling and providing pardons to US corporations. Section is missing, about how CIA funded Deltan Dallagnol to spread payments through the system, getting Sergio Moro (ex-federal) into the scheme of illegal imprisonment of Lula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:12B4:6C7:1F00:60DE:592E:348F:F9F (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan's history missing

I would have a mention of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto being executed by Zia Ul Haq who went on to fight a war which didnt do good for his country but rather american interests.

There is a potential for us to talk about Imran Khan's 2022 removal as well.

Pakistan Regime change

Please add the Pakistan Regime change details in the US involvement section... 119.160.68.123 (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yemen

Why can't we mention Yemen? Unreal7 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

what happened in yemen PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

US involvement in Yemen is a farce. The most the United States ever did was give intelligence to Saudi Arabia for airstrikes on AQAP positions. The US has had zero involvement in Houthi-government or Houthi-Saudi coalition fighting. BSC-56 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan (1978-1992)

Both before the Soviets invaded, and after the soviets left Afghanistan America was funding rural uprisings against the marxist-leninist government in Kabul.

"The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Rebel Groups in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet Invasion. In this period you were the national security advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to mujahideen began in 1980 after the '79 24 December invasion. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3rd, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which i explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet Military intervention." They eventually succeeded, April 28th 1992 the government of Mohammad Najibullah fell. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

What's your point? The beginning of the funding in July 1979 is already in the article. --Jo1971 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Current elephant in the room is missing from the list

The very obvious case of regime change that happened in 2014 is completely missing from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2498:EE00:9CB2:CD00:7AE5:26C7 (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

its hard to find many links and articles about ukraine. You can provide the sources yourself then. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put together some sources to address Ukraine, but a lot of the discourse in relation to US influence on the coup is conjecture and not yet widely recognised in much of academic literature on the topic. Could we frame it just as influence? or just provide the evidence without making conclusive statements in regards to responsibility for the coup? India.OHC (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The evidence I know of is a leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland (at the time the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs) and Geoffrey Pyatt (at the time US Ambassador to Ukraine). The BBC have a transcript here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 and the raw release is probably on youtube.

The BBC says of the transcript "However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals."

Nuland also did an interview with the BBC shortly after the leak in which she said "I wish we had twenty million more dollars to support civil society here, to support free media here..." and then answered the question "are you funding the opposition here in any way?" with "We are supporting free media here, we are supporting electoral openness here, we do not fund any political parties here" :https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-26079591 Incognizant (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Swiss historian Andreas Kappeler comments it like this (translation mainly Google):

Kappeler, Andreas (2017). Ungleiche Brüder: Russen und Ukrainer vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (in German). Munich: C. H. Beck. p. 220. ISBN 978-3-406-71410-8.

It is true that foreign-funded non-governmental organizations in Ukraine, as in many other countries, have actively supported the building of civil society. However, the allegation that the USA and the EU planned and implemented the Euromaidan in a targeted manner belongs to the realm of conspiracy theories. The Euromaidan was essentially a grassroots, spontaneous mass movement against an authoritarian government that had broken its word by withdrawing its signature from the Association Agreement and lost its legitimacy with the ruthless use of force.

--Jo1971 (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Sort of like Solidarity in Poland, then? In any case, I don' seem to be able to add a topic. I just wanted to mention that Panama is listed in he intro, but never made it to the official list. Know Einstein (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Bolivia

Is there not enough evidence to include the Bolivian coup in 2019? Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change/Archive_5#Bolivia BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Im my opinion, yes. But we've to reunite some references BachareldeCananeia (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Monroe Doctrine & Tyler Doctrine sections?

How would one go about developing these sections as parts of the article? Each seems of particular importance to early non-isolationism, and merit inclusion. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

What is regime supposed to mean

Like are we writing clickbait here or are we just going to consciously replicate the dysfunction we read 65.102.240.14 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime

In politics, a regime (also "régime") is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural or social norms, etc. that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society. Franfran2424 (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Despite your opinion on its use in the media, ‘regime’s definition is appropriate here 2600:6C42:75F0:8D30:3D59:FE6A:23BC:F13A (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

China 1945-1949

After WWII, the United States intervened in the Chinese Civil War by spending several billion US dollars in cash and armaments to support the Kuomingtang (KMT) against the Communist Party of China (CPC), according to William Blum's "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II," and other sources. The US armed Japanese forces against the communists, moved hundreds of thousands of KMT soldiers whom they supported logistically and militarily, and involved tens of thousands of American soldiers who fought against the communists. After the CPC won the civil war in 1949 and the KMT fled to Taiwan, the United States continued a highly similar foreign policy and made efforts to overthrow the communist government on mainland China.

An IP would not like the pre-1949 US intervention to be included here [17]. They argue that the KMT enjoyed diplomatic recognition as the legitimate ruling government of China while the CPC did not, and that's true. However, the United States invested huge quantities of resources and personnel in a failed effort to install one government and topple another that controlled significant (and increasing) swaths of China from 1945 onwards. Just as importantly, the thrust of American policy was largely unchanged once the CPC won the war, and we cover later regime change efforts here. For these reasons, American efforts to determine China's government from 1945 onwards should be included in this article, which is a reference source. If anything, we might be able to find a source that argues that this doesn't constitute an effort at regime change, and cite it. -Darouet (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It does sound to me like the KMT would have been the party in power and Mao was attempting to remove them. Thus the US supported the party in power who ultimately lost. Doesnt seem at first glance like regime change to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree; this is not regime change. I don't think Blum is a sufficiently RS to hang this on either. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Overall, the section is okay, but not great. Quotes such as the "Japanese occupying army under whose boot the Chinese people had suffered so terribly to fight against the Chinese communists" is just editorializing and do not belong. US support to KMT seems more like regime preservation rather than regime change, it would be more fitting over at the 'U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments' article rather than this one. As an aside, however, some might argue that there was regime change—or at least attempts at regime change—going the other way, in favor of the communists. Skornezy (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Axis WWII powers "puppet regimes"?

I am surprised to read this, what exterior power does this suggest was behind them? I suggest either naming (and producing references to) such an entity, or removing this allusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.153.214 (talk • contribs)

Proposed merge of U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments into United States involvement in regime change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge; difference in scope and a broad topic warranting more than one article; no consensus on alternative proposals with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

---

"authoritarian governments" is a wide umbrella and potentially POV. The existing article is better, as the presence of a regime change and the US being involved in it (or not) are factual information Cambalachero (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

They are separate topics and should not be merged. Burrobert (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I also believe they have different topic and content and should not be merged. To solve the problem mentioned by Cambalachero, we could changed the title (U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments) to something like Criticism of the U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

We already have Criticism of United States foreign policy. Cambalachero (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes but it is not exactly Criticism of United States foreign policy. It is Criticism of the United states policy toward authoritarian governments, and so should go under the section Criticism of United States foreign policy#Support of dictatorships and state terrorism, but since that section is already too long, it's not a problem if we have a new article like this. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That would make it an explicit WP:POVFORK. Right now it's a subtle one, because (as I pointed at the article's talk page) the name is open to the diverse perspectives but the content is always about the times the US supported authoritarian regimes, and makes no mention of the times it opposed them. That, and it relies heavily on biased sources. Cambalachero (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The article has important POV issues as of this date and a merge would be a possible solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Without any problem, a merge seems as one totally ok solution. Support. 79.101.214.253 (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree; these are very distinct topics and a merge is not warranted. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, "authoritarian governments" in my opinion is potentially POV. Mhorg (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, both of these subjects are very different. The US has various policies towards authoritarian governments which haven't led to regime change (or regime change of non-authoritarian governments). gbrading (ταlκ) 22:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022: Pakistan; a regime change?

Added on 07:50, 10 August 2023. Imran Khan was removed as prime minister in a regular vote of no confidence. Does this constitute "regime change" as intended in the article? Assuming the "secret Pakistan cable" story is confirmed to be true, by the way. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It's a softer form of it than physically conquering a country and installing a puppet government, but actions undertaken to oust a prime minister from politics (ultimately leading to his imprisonment) certainly constitute regime change. The cable was reported with reliable sources, so that aspect of it isn't really for us to evaluate. entropyandvodka | talk 04:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I am still skeptical about both the "regime change" nature as intended in the article and the sources used. The text should use conditional verbs and caution. It's just two sources of which one is The Intercept and the other one (Common Dreams) cites Intercept. We have to evaluate the reliability of the sources: both sources don't seem so neutral or so reliable, we need more and more mainstream reliable ones, above all. I suggest to submit this added section to a wider-range of users for further evaluation and improvement. The added section may be more suitable for "contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak" article. Lone Internaut (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Entropyandvodka: "actions undertaken to oust a prime minister from politics (ultimately leading to his imprisonment) certainly constitute regime change. The cable was reported with reliable sources, so that aspect of it isn't really for us to evaluate." Neither cited source ([18], [19]) labels the events in question as a "regime change," so that aspect (i.e., the key factor determining inclusion or exclusion here) is very much "for us to evaluate."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lone Internaut: The Intercept, with attribution, is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, so your characterization that it's not "so reliable" is just your conjecture. Nonetheless, more sources would be good, but I don't see any reason to remove the section. Skornezy (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I confess that I was not aware of that list. However, given that "almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed" I would say that another source like The New York Times or The Washington Post, certainly not new to issues like these, would have been at least necessary . The addition of The Times of India does not seem positive to me, quite the contrary. And, as noted by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) "Neither cited source labels the events in question as a "regime change". There's just no much ground to add this thing. Lone Internaut (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the veracity of the cable being beyond the scope of our evaluation, given that it's reported and published in full in a RS. As for whether or not the specific case here constitutes Regime change, I'd argue it falls under the definition, given the US relationship with and involvement of the Pakistani military (which is described in the source). entropyandvodka | talk 17:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No I am very skeptical of US involvement in the vote of no confidence and their is very little evidence provided and US relations with Pakistan's new government are still frosty. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes it is regime change in my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• I agree that this ouster should be included in this list, especially since the involvement of the US is now well documented. -Darouet (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• No The content doesn't mention any involvement of the US in the vote of no confidence, which was the one that produced that change of government. That, along with the fact that The Intercept is the only source included, means that the content should be removed, since exceptional claims need exceptional sources and we risk engaging in original research on the contrary. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, before I forget, what is supposed to be the involvement here precisely? The content only suggests that the US could be supportive of a motion of no confidence, but does not mention any role in it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree: This is regime change through soft power, and thus deserves inclusion. Skornezy (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Skornezy:, beforing continuing to add the disputed section please see my question regarding the US involvement, as well as other editors concerns regarding weak sourcing. It's not enough that a single source is deemed reliable, and instead the changes must be also supported by further sources, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: per the cited sources (listed on WP:RSP) and the yes votes by Darouet and Skornezy above. The evidence points to regime change through soft power.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• No I concur with NoonIcarus. This is exceptionally weak sourcing. Khan was removed by a vote of no confidence. "Regime change" has a certain extraordinary connotation, hence almost all RS do not use that terminology. Cononsense (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. Week sourcing and not regime change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes even if the US wasn't involved officially in the vote of no confidence, we can confirm that it was involved in the effort to oust Khan in some extent via a soft coup or constitutional coup and that constitutes as regime change.Joaquinazo (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• No per NoonIcarus and BobFromBrockley. Additionally, this contentious material should be excluded unless/until consensus is reached to retain it, per WP:ONUS.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• A little late, and already implied above: No. The addition of this section is a stretch and our own interpretation, of a fact similar to the Nuland-affair in Ukraine, which does not constitute "regime change" as intended in the article. More reliable sources and a direct attribution of regime change would be needed. I still maintain the section may be more suitable for "contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak" article. Lone Internaut (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with moving the material to Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak instead of having it restored here, although it might have to be modified a bit for that article. Any objections?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No objections from me. Skornezy (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)