Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Argentina

The 1983 elections may be mentioned to give closure to the section, but that's it. The US has not been involved in any regime change in Argentina since then. The comment about the economy is a mess: the great depression was not caused by the economic policies of the military regime, but by the economic policies of Carlos Menem, established a decade afterwards. And, as explained in greater detail in Washington Consensus#Argentina, some people may think that the crisis was caused by the policies proposed by the WC, but others think that the crisis was caused instead by local issues, such as the convertibility plan (which was not proposed by the WC). The US did not plot to remove De la Rúa from power, nor to appoint Rodríguez Saá or Duhalde: those were purely the result of local politics. Cambalachero (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Give some references about what you are saying. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned many things. For which one do you want a reference? If you want the full picture, I have worked on the articles of all presidents of Argentina from 1983 to 2015 and made them good articles. Cambalachero (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia's policies you should reference everything. However the article no longer mentions De la Rúa, Saá or Duhalde. Although on that later one I think you're confussing their being mention as a result from the political and economical crisis as their being mention as named or appointed by the US. Not every single person name here was named or removed by US involvement, but a historical article should give a general picture and give as much context as possible. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As it is written, the article confuses the economic crisis of the military regime and the 2001 crisis, as if they were the same one. There's almost a 20 years gap between both. De la Rua, Rodríguez Saá and Duhalde are not mentioned, but are implied, with the "provoking the resignation of several presidents" bit. Add that this article is named "United States involvement in regime change in Latin America", and the reader gets the picture that the US was somewhat involved in the 2001-2002 presidential crisis. References? The references already included will do. They do explain the 2001 crisis and the events closer in time that led to it... and then mention, as a trivia or footnote, that similar policies had been implemented many years in the past as well. Cambalachero (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I fail to see your problem with the text. If the text does not outright says that the changing of presidents was direct doing ot the US you can't remove something just because someone maybe somewhere somehow may assume that, and on the other hand you said that the economic crisis had nothing to do with the WC applied both during the military regime and afterwards something that I doubt. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

French Guiana

French Guiana is included in the map as a target of US anti-democratic machinations, but it is not a sovereign country. It is an overseas department and region of France. twaj —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela

Not a single mention of the 2015 venezuelan elections ho Maduros party LOST badly?? Sotavento (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Why should there be any? Cambalachero (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Jamez42 has been removing the whole section on Venezuela either by commenting it out or by completely removing the text. It is fine to raise problems with the text or make edits to the text. It is *not* fine to simply remove the whole section or make it disappear completely for the ordinary reader by commenting it out. I have had to revert their attempts to effect this disappearance twice. I am asking this editor to follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss process rather than escalate to an edit war. Oska (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: I finished my response in the other ongoing RfC, in case you're interested in reading it. The current section about Venezuela is based in this edit by a SPA whose only edit in the encyclopedia was in this article. It is completely unreferenced, and taking a closer look at it can show why it is problematic:

• A fatal decrease in the price of oil, due to overproduction by the USA
• accusations of economic warfare, sanctions & blockades, conducted by the USA and its allies were not without merit
• Maduro was narrowly reelected during a UN-observed process.
• There have been accusations that this is an attempted coup d'etat by the USA and its allies.
• details and the truth are hard to distinguish from the propaganda emanating from both sides of this conflict.

As I mentioned in my edit summary, there are serious concerns per WP:ORIGINAL, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV with the section, and while it is true that references were added afterwards to the text and that changes have been made to improve the neutrality, an important part of the text is still in this original contribution. For these reasons, at the very least I would like to propose the changes in the wordings unrelated to the removal of information, namely "following actions by some of the military and media and demonstrations by the minority opposition" and "demonstrations by the majority of the public and actions by most of the military." Given the current state of the section I think it should be removed, but I understand if content about Venezuela is needed and I can help to start it over. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply Jamez42. I appreciate what you're saying about your finding issues with the section in its current state and that you think it was developed from a weak foundation. But I found your removal of the section too radical a response to those concerns. Wikipedia articles that have been created and developed need to be proposed for deletion and a discussion is held before that action is completed. I think the same principle extends (although to a lesser degree) to a section of an article. There is no formal process for deletion of a section but if you think the deletion will be controversial or if you meet resistance to the deletion then I think it's appropriate to back off and discuss how it can be improved or reformed or, if still deemed necessary, make a good case for its deletion.

Speaking for myself, I'm only here because I saw the listed RfC on the other related article. I haven't previously made edits to this article or the other and my edits here were only to revert the section deletion. My input here will remain at that - being opposed to the section deletion. If you want to make edits to the text of the section, or replace it with other text, then it will be up to others to engage with you on that. Oska (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if my edit was seen as too radical; like you mentioned, it was precisely a bold edit, I hope I was able to clarify the motives with the previous explanation. Later on I will try to start over the section. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment; The section can be commented and copied here for discussion.--MaoGo (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela

The election of Hugo Chávez in December 1998, dubbed the Bolivarian Revolution by supporters, marked a new Socialist direction for the Latin American nation, with the party named the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). In 1999, voters approved a referendum on a new constitution and in 2000, re-elected Chávez. In April 2002, Chávez was briefly ousted from power in the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt following actions by some of the military and media and demonstrations by the minority opposition, but he was returned to power after two days as a result of demonstrations by the majority of the public and actions by most of the military. It has been alleged that the United States was involved in this coup attempt, due in part to members of the Bush administration holding meetings with opposition leaders.

After winning election for two more terms, and another two constitutional referenda; failing one and winning one; Chávez died in office in 2013, and was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro also of the PSUV.

Maduro's presidency has coincided with a decline in Venezuela's socioeconomic status, with crime, inflation, poverty and hunger increasing; western analysts have attributed Venezuela's decline to both Chávez and Maduro's economic policies, while Maduro has blamed speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents. Shortages in Venezuela and decreased living standards resulted in protests beginning in 2014 that escalated into daily marches nationwide, resulting in 43 deaths and a decrease in Maduro's popularity.

On 20 May 2018, Maduro was reelected into the presidency in an election that had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela's modern history, which as a result was described by the Atlantic Council and media such as the Financial Times as a show election The majority of nations in the Americas and the Western world refused to recognize the validity of this election and of the pro-Maduro Constituent Assembly, initiating their own sanctions against him and his administration as well, although allies such as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia and Turkey offered support and denounced what they described as interference in Venezuela's domestic affairs.

Despite encouragement to resign as president when his first term expired on 10 January 2019, Maduro was inaugurated for a new term on that date. This resulted in widespread condemnation; minutes after taking oath, the Organization of American States approved a resolution in a special session of its Permanent Council in which Maduro was declared illegitimate as President of Venezuela, urging that new elections be summoned. With their belief that his election was illegitimate, some nations removed their embassies from Venezuela, claimed that by retaking power, Maduro was converting Venezuela into an illegitimate de facto dictatorship.

Additionally, on 23 January 2019, the President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, was declared the acting President by that body. Guaidó was immediately recognized as the legitimate President by several nations, including the United States and the Lima Group, as well as the Organization of American States. Maduro disputed Guaidó's claim and broke off diplomatic ties with several nations who recognized Guaidó's claim. Maduro's government says the crisis is a coup d'état orchestated by the United States to topple him and control the country's oil reserves.

References

@Oska and MaoGo: Copying section to comment per suggestion. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

I chose to add the POV (neutrality dispute) tag to this article. This is a controversial topic, and for good reason. However, there are several reasons I do not believe the article gives a fair viewpoint of the issue:

- Inconsistent use of charged language. Multiple US-backed leaders are described as “authoritarian” or “dictatorial”, but Omar Torijjos, the unelected “Maximum Leader” who seized control over Panama in a military coup, is simply described as a “Left-wing Panamanian de facto ruler”. This is a clear imbalance.

- Failure to mention multiple competing narratives or disputes, driven by uncritical use of sources. Referring to the section on Panama again, the article uncritically refers to John Perkins’s Confessions of an Economic Hitman, without mentioning that Perkins’s “findings” are heavily disputed by many. For another example, the article mentions that US officials met with Venezuelan opposition leaders prior to the 2002 coup attempt, without mentioning (as the article for the coup describes) that the US had discouraged a coup during these meetings.

- Repeatedly and simply describing the “Washington Consensus and Neoliberalism” as creating Latin America’s poverty problems. Not only is this strongly debatable (poverty was hardly foreign to the region prior to the 1970s), the article repeatedly fails to elaborate at all on these claims, or explain how neoliberalism supposedly creates poverty. The reader is just expected to take it at face value.

- Going well beyond the regime change events in question, again, inconsistently. For example, the article on Paraguay goes on at length about the Left’s electoral triumphs after the restoration of democracy. When right-wing or centrist parties when free elections, it is either unmentioned or described pejoratively, with the article, again, blaming all the country’s economic problems on their “neoliberal policies” (see the section on Brazil). Meanwhile, the article does not mention that US military interventions in Grenada and Panama led to the overthrow of the dictatorships and a swift restoration of democratic rule. Is this article only for describing “bad” interventions?

The result of all these things is that it feels like the article could have been written by the PR department of a “Pink Tide” political party. Even somebody without much education on this topic can feel how unbalanced the article is, just by reading it. It’s not a nuanced or even very detailed article, as much as it is brief, pejorative descriptions of various US-endorsed regime changes and goverenments. This needs a lot of work.Jogarz1921 (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Wikipedia describes events according to the views of published, reliable sources. Whether any of us think those sources are "fair" is irrelevant. Likewise, including any and all "competing narratives" would create a false balance. To show an actual imbalance, you would need to demonstrate problems with the specific sources cited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary "accusations" section

See also: Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change § Accusations_section

The "accusations" section, which only contains Venezuela, is confusing and unnecessary. Reliable sources, such as those already cited in the Venezuela section, clearly link the US to at least involvement the 2002 coup, through civil society assistance and early acknowledgement of the new government. Regime change occurred and the US was involved. I don't see how this could be any simpler. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• (...) Chávez accused the United States of being involved (...)
• (...) while Maduro has blamed speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents (...)
• (...) In early 2015, the Maduro government accused the United States of attempting to overthrow him. (...)
• (...) In 2016, Maduro again claimed that the United States was attempting to assist the opposition with a coup attempt. (...)
• (...) Maduro's government says the crisis is a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States to topple him and control the country's oil reserves.

@Cmonghost: The whole section consists in paragraphs with these statements. Terms such a "accused" and "blamed" does not appear to be in other sections, which is why Venezuela has its own, but if there are any other disputed allegations I'd be happy to support its inclusion below. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Some of the points in the Venezuela section are accusations, but that doesn't justify the movement of the entire subsection to a different section. Several of the points are more concrete, such as those sourced to the WPJ article about US aid, as well as the meetings that occurred between Bush admin officials and those involved in the coup. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, the section consists for the most part on these accusations. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: (a) That's because you removed the (reliably-sourced) concrete points. (b) That's still not a reason to create a separate section just for Venezuela—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. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that is a problem. And now we have multiple new sources that make it clear that the U.S. is involved in regime change in Venezuela:

• "Trump's Venezuela Moves Follow Long History Of Intervention In Latin America". NPR.org. Retrieved 2019-12-29.
• Williams, Aime (2019-05-01). "US commitment to regime change in Venezuela tested". Financial Times. Retrieved 2019-12-29.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)</ref>
• Gilsinan, Uri Friedman, Kathy (2019-02-02). "Trump's Affinity for Strongmen Has a Big Exception". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-12-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Weisbrot, Mark (2019-03-13). "The Reality Behind Trump's Coalition for Regime Change in Venezuela". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2019-12-29.

I moved the section back. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I also added the four sources above and one more from 2019. I had previously added some of these same sources to United States involvement in regime change, which Jamez42 deleted for reasons that are still unclear to me. See: Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Venezuela_2 (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

WPJ source

Three statements sourced to a scholarly article in the World Policy Journal were removed on the following grounds:

• reliance in a single source — Information drawn from a reliable source cannot be deleted simply because there is only one source listed in the article. The source is only used for three statements, which is far from unusual.
• possible WP:SYNTH — Unclear how this could be the case; the source explicitly links US civil society assistance to the coup:

there is no doubt that US civil society assistance has gone to organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway. Among the recipient of such aid was the Venezuelan trade union CTV, which worked closely with Pedro Carmona to oust Chávez. Moreover, some of the American organizations through which the NED channels its aid endorsed the coup.

• disputed claims, such as the CTV's "participation" in the coup — It is unclear who disputes this other than the reverting editor. As seen in the quote above, the reliable source cited states that the CTV was involved.

I have restored the source and the statements. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: The source is a primary source because it is a research article by Omar G. Encarnación. As such, other sources should be provided to support facts, specially if it is about such a controversial topic such as the 2002 coup in Venezuela. The main WP:SYNTH problem is the content seeks to link "civil society assistance" directly with "regime change", along with many statements that I would proceed to explain.

There is nothing in the article that suggests that the NED increased its assistance As US-Venezuela relations deteriorated leading up to the coup, only that It has been reported that as conditions in Venezuela deteriorated and Chávez clashed with various business, labor and media groups, the National Endowment for Democracy stepped up its civil society assistance (...) (page 45). I added emphasis in "It has been reported" since besides the difference in the quotes, the author expresses doubt of this affirmation.

The article continues quoting doubts towards the relationship between the civil society assistance and Chávez ouster:

• Whether any of that money was put into difrect efforts to oust Chávez is the subject of much conjecture. The State Department has put on hold a $1 million grant to the NED pending an invetigation into whether any recipients of the agency's funds went to groups that actively plotted against Chávez. (page 45)

• They add that their objective in Venezuela was "to create political space for opponents to Mr. Chávez, not to contribute to his ouster". (page 46)

• According to the NED's senior project officer for Latin America, the agency's funds went to specific projects designed "to bolster the democratic opposition in Venezuela -including training in civics, journalism and conflict resolution- and did not contribute to the attempted ouster of Mr. Chávez" (page 46)

Furthermore, the article never states that this assistance was received by groups involved in the coup, but rather organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway. Albeit little, this is a crucial difference.

I should note that outside the "The Role of U.S. Civil Society Assistance" section, there is plenty of background information about the events that led up to the coup, including Chavez's, which causes me to worry about WP:CHERRY. Should I mention that Chávez even admitted in a speech in the National Assembly that he sought to "create a crisis"? Taking into account this along with WP:PRIMARY and the failed verification, this text should be removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, @Jogarz1921: pointed out that the article does not mention that the US had discouraged a coup during these meetings. This needs to be addressed as well. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42::

• The source is a primary source because it is a research article by Omar G. Encarnación. As such, other sources should be provided to support facts, specially if it is about such a controversial topic such as the 2002 coup in Venezuela.

WP:SCHOLARSHIP says Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. It goes on to say that One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Google Scholar lists 66 citations, which is a not-insubstantial amount for this type of article.

• The main WP:SYNTH problem is the content seeks to link "civil society assistance" directly with "regime change"

The author does that, not Wikipedia, so it's not synthesis. Please read WP:SYNTH again carefully and this should become clear.

• there is plenty of background information about the events that led up to the coup, including Chavez's, which causes me to worry about WP:CHERRY

The article is about US involvement, which is what is included. That's not WP:CHERRY, it's complying with WP:COATRACK. The background information belongs on the article for the 2002 coup.

As for your other points, if you would like to incorporate more information from the article, or other articles, I have no problem with your doing so. What I took issue with was removing it wholesale on flimsy grounds.

— cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I invite you to read primary source: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. The author never mentions "regime change", and instead only hypothesizes about a "civil society coup", and the same article allows doubt of the extent of the involvement of the US. The synthesis is done by the editors including the content. We would have to discuss if "civil society assistance", in the context that it is explained, constitute "regime change". Something similar has been discussed in the "United States involvement in regime change" talk page, which I encourage reading. In any case, this is the theory of a single author, not a widely accepted affirmation, and in worst case scenario it would need to be attributed. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I'm disappointed to see that you removed the information again, with a false edit summary no less, while discussion is still ongoing. It would be more productive to follow WP:BRD. Note that in your haste to redact your dispreferred information, you rendered the article nonsensical: it now refers to "such civil society assistance" when civil society assistance is never mentioned.

WP:SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Only one source is cited for the information you removed, so multiple sources are not being combined. How on earth could it be considered synthesis?

I have read WP:PRIMARY. Have you? WP:PRIMARY defines a "primary source" as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Can you explain why you think the article in question fits that bill? Based on the criteria defined in WP:SCHOLARSHIP it appears to be a high-quality source.

Also, can you please explain why you believe that a "civil society coup" would not be considered a form of "regime change"? It has the word "coup" in it, so I think that position would be hard to defend. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I am troubled by the removal of sourced material as well--especially from academic work. However, because I do not have free access to the entire article, could you either: (1) point to an easy way to get one or (2) just give full passages from the source that supports the language that was deleted. If you could also provide the specific diffs where the material was deleted that will help. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Diffs where the content was removed, restored, and removed again, respectively: [1][2][3] The article is available on Jstor but if you don't have access I'm not sure how much of it I'm allowed to copy here due to WP:COPYVIO. There's a good deal of discussion of US involvement in the coup via civil society assistance; here's one relevant paragraph:

However, there is no doubt that U.S. civil society assistance has gone to organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway. Among the recipient of such aid was the Venezuelan trade union CTV, which worked closely with Pedro Carmona to oust Chavez. Moreover, some of the American organizations through which the NED channels its aid endorsed the coup. "Last night led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country," said George A. Folsom, head of the International Republican Institute, an organization affiliated with the Republican Party that is active in Venezuela and a recipient of NED grants.

— cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That's solid. I will restore the language. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Don't. It isn't solid, it relies on a single source by a single author, Omar G. Encarnación, contrary to a scenario of several scholars agreeing on the same topic. There are several issues with including the section, as I have argued above, but I will copy for you to read for simplicity:

There is nothing in the article that suggests that the NED increased its assistance As US-Venezuela relations deteriorated leading up to the coup, only that It has been reported that as conditions in Venezuela deteriorated and Chávez clashed with various business, labor and media groups, the National Endowment for Democracy stepped up its civil society assistance (...) (page 45). I added emphasis in "It has been reported" since besides the difference in the quotes, the author expresses doubt of this affirmation.

The article continues quoting doubts towards the relationship between the civil society assistance and Chávez ouster

Whether any of that money was put into difrect efforts to oust Chávez is the subject of much conjecture. The State Department has put on hold a $1 million grant to the NED pending an invetigation into whether any recipients of the agency's funds went to groups that actively plotted against Chávez. (page 45)

They add that their objective in Venezuela was "to create political space for opponents to Mr. Chávez, not to contribute to his ouster". (page 46)

According to the NED's senior project officer for Latin America, the agency's funds went to specific projects designed "to bolster the democratic opposition in Venezuela -including training in civics, journalism and conflict resolution- and did not contribute to the attempted ouster of Mr. Chávez" (page 46)

Furthermore, the article never states that this assistance was received by groups involved in the coup, but rather organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway. Albeit little, this is a crucial difference.

Then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer declared that in the meetings with the opposition, opposition leaders were explicitly told that the United States would not support a coup

If you are to restore it, use attribution and change the text to be faithful to the source at the very least. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Attribution works. I would not object to the addition of a sentence that summarizes the quotes provided by Jamez42 above. Cmonghost Can you do that? You know the source better than I do. If another editor who has access to the source--including Jamez42--wants to do that, it seems like a good compromise. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of the quotations above are selective. For instance, while the quote Whether any of that money was put into direct efforts to oust Chávez is the subject of much conjecture does appear in the article, it is followed by there is no doubt that US civil society assistance has gone to organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway. Basically, it's not clear whether any NED money went directly toward funding the coup, but it is clear that NED-funded groups were involved in the coup, including CTV, which worked closely with Pedro Carmona to oust Chavez. NED-funded groups also endorsed the coup along with the US, who called it a "victory for democracy". I'm not opposed to adding the denials from the NED's project officer and from Ari Fleischer, but these denials are a poor excuse for excluding the whole section, and don't overrule the other evidence. I can make the edit when I have some more time. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: And using that quotation to argue for regime change is quite a stretch. Let's not forget that the problem remain that we are relying on a single source for taking these statements as fact. Taking the quote as it is only says that the NED funded groups, from the civil society it should be mentioned, that supported the coup. There are three problems here: first, that the aid had the intention of regime change; second, that the aid at the end was used to actively help with the coup, and last but not least, that the source says support but not involvement. As I mentioned above: Furthermore, the article never states that this assistance was received by groups involved in the coup, but rather organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway. Albeit little, this is a crucial difference.. This does not hold water. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: "Support" is a form of involvement. No one is saying the US gave them money and explicitly said "here, use this to go stage a coup." But the US funded groups hostile to Chávez who went on to stage a coup d'état. This is clearly relevant as it's discussed in reliable sources. Ergo it should be included in the article. This is a pretty simple issue. Here is another source: [4]. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaving a comment here since the NED's financement of the CTV argument has been wielded again. There is no evidence that the CTV participated in the 2002 coup, and these claims are strongly contested. Several scholars sources state this (El acertijo de abril ISBN 9789807212144 and 2002, el año que vivimos en las calles ISBN 9789804080173, to mention some), and there's currently no mention regarding this in the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt article. If the CTV's participation is so contested, more should the US involvement based only in its indirect financement through the NED. For clarification, I will include a chronology of the 11 April 2002 events:

• The opposition marches to the PDVSA headquarters.
• The march is redirected and continues to Miraflores, the presidential palace.
• The Llaguno Overpass events, a shootout between the Caracas Metropolitan Police and the pro-government Bolivarian Circles starts and leaves 19 deaths.
• Military high command insubordinates and demands Chávez's resignation. Chávez is arrested briefly afterwards
• Pedro Carmona proclaims himself as president and dissolves the government.

One of the theories to support this is that the shootout was planned beforehand by the opposition. Journalist Otto Neustald's statements are one of the main arguments used by supporters of this theory, but this claim has never been proven and is contested by the rest of the journalists present during the filming of the message where the military asked for Chávez's resignation. (This is something that I have already explained in the past)

References

Furthermore, Carlos Ortega did not have any involvement in Carmona's governemnt and he didn't even attend to Carmona's ceromony (Molina, pag. 72). This is also mentioned in the main article: sectors that opposed Chávez and summoned protests later would oppose the coup. As such, this should not be included in the articles. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Boliva? Bolivia.

Surely someone more thorough than I can get a section together on Bolivia. Mercy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.23.106 (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A thread was started in the main article. I encourage you to read it, as well participate if you want to. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing countries, e.g. Cuba

Seems like a bunch of countries are missing, including Cuba, Dominican Republic, etc. See Template:United_States_intervention_in_Latin_America. @Dereck Camacho: Since you created the article, I'll ask you: Was it just an oversight? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I did as much as I could as a single person, and I'm not very well versed on those cases. I use mostly cases that I'm familiar with. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Those countries are conspicuously absent, so we really need to mention them, or readers will get the wrong idea. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Be my guest. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Material to be added

From this version of the template on United States intervention in Latin America, much material that is conspicuously absent from this article needs to be added (ideally as a summary):

Policy

• Monroe Doctrine (1823)
• Platt Amendment (1901–1904)
• Roosevelt Corollary/Big Stick ideology (1904)
• Good Neighbor policy (1933)
• Dollar diplomacy
• Banana Wars
• Mexican–American War (1846–1848)
• Spanish–American War (1898)
• Mexican Border War (1910–1919)
• United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution (1916–1919)

Overt actions and occupations

• Paraguay expedition (1858)

 Done First Occupation of Cuba (1899–1902)

• Panama–Colombia separation and Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty (1903)

 Done Second Occupation of Cuba (1906–1909)

• Occupations of Honduras
• Occupation of Nicaragua (1912–1933)
• Occupation of Veracruz (1914)
• Occupation of Haiti (1915–1934)
• Occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–1924)
• Occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66)
• Invasion of Grenada (1983)
• Invasion of Panama (1989)

Covert actions

• 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

 Done Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)

• Operation MONGOOSE
• 1964 Brazilian coup d'état
• Project FUBELT
• 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Disputed claims

• 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt
• 2004 Haitian rebellion

The above is a check list of things that can be added. If you have added the material from these articles (and included the wikilink) here, please replace the asterisk with "done" check-mark, using this template:

{{done}}

I think nearly all of them are relevant. If you disagree with adding some of them, please discuss below. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. The first step I will do is just add a wikilink to the appropriate articles as a "see also" or "main". I will check them off even if there is no summary yet. We may want a separate list of this for summaries. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

OAS involvement in U.S. regime change in Latin America

The Organization of American States (OAS) was involved with regime change re: Cuba, Argentina, Dominican Republic, ... in Latin America, and now Venezuela. WP:RS:

• "The Organization of American States Shouldn't Be Run by Regime Change Enthusiasts". Foreign Policy In Focus. 2019-01-23. Retrieved 2020-01-01.
• COHA. "Are the Organization of American States' Imperialist Roots too deep to Extirpate Today?". Retrieved 2020-01-01.
• "Organization of American States". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-01-01.

--David Tornheim (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• @David Tornheim: The first reference seems to be an opinion article with biased wording:

hobbled by pro-Trump leadership

Almagro has acted against many of the basic principles and mandates of the organization and consistently represented U.S. interests above those of its neighbors

unsubstantiated claims against Venezuela and Cuba

Almagro’s attempts at regime change in Venezuela

wisely decided against continuing to play the role of Almagro-Trump lackey in the OAS

Almagro has been far more interested in anti-democratic regime change than in facing these critical challenges

• The Council in Hemispheric Affairs is a partisan think tank, which describes in its about page:

COHA also has condemned Washington’s unexamined and reflexive policy towards Cuba and Venezuela, and the negative impact of neo-liberal reforms on the average Latin American. COHA was opposed to the adherence of the U.S. to NAFTA under the thesis that it shouldn’t have been initiated until basic Mexican institutions were truly democratic, its trade unions free enough to negotiate as equals, and the government purged of endemic corruption.

• The second reference appers to have the same problem and situation.

Are the Organization of American States’ Imperialist Roots too deep to Extirpate Today?

The OAS Imperialist Confirmation and the Exclusion of Cuba

the United States pressed “anti-communist” coercive operations and collective measures, with tacit support of the OAS machinery

• The third refence does not make mention at all about "regime change" or any similar event.

Opinionated and partisan sources do not amount to reliable sources. However, even considering its content, the articles don't make mention at specific actions by the OAS to promote regime change. Even if it did, the article is about regime change promoted by the United States. The problem that the article does not mention the OAS or any involvement remains, so including it in "See also" is original research. For these reasons, I will remove the OAS from the See also section. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela edits: Jan 2020

Overt action by the United States against Venezuela did not begin until 2019. Of course there are allegations and relations were sour prior to 2019, but obvious support for regmie change began following the second inauguration of Maduro. Before anything prior to 2019 is added, there must be wide support by reliable sources that regime change was attempt before. Until then, it seems to be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR if such information is added.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I added this section as a possible version that talks about 2019, per the discussion in the main article's talk page, that gives a brief introduction and deals with both Guaidó's funding and sanctions. --Jamez42 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice

This article mentioned here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Regime_change_(esp._Venezuela). --David Tornheim (talk) 08:03, 4 January 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) 05:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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.

The result of this discussion was not merged. There is an unanimous consensus against the merge.ReyHahn (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Considering the recent proposals and since there is overlap in themes and content between the United States involvement in regime change and this article, I propose merging the United States involvement in regime change in Latin America article into the United States involvement in regime change article. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Although this article needs work, there are themes that apply, such as the Monroe Doctrine and the role of the OAS in regime change. This article already gets 400 views per day. Besides editors have already put a lot of work into this article. If it was to be merged, that should have happened a while ago. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: The main article already includes many of the themes you mentioned:

• Mexico and Monroe Doctrine (1865-1867)
• Cuba, Platt Amendment and Banana Wars (1898–1902, 1906-1909, 1960s)
• Honduras and Good Neighbor Policy (1903–1925)
• Nicaragua (1909–1910, 1912–1933)
• Haiti (1915–1934)
• Dominican Republic (1916–1924, 1961, 1965–66)
• Guatemala (1954)
• Brazil (1961–1964)
• Chile (1970–1973)
• Grenada (1983)
• Panama (1989)

This would make the article a content fork in many ways (WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:REDUNDANTFORK). I suppose a position can be established here, but this would also implicate extra work to both start the article and to maintain the content. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, despite similar topics the merge would not only made the recieving article too long but also may preclude the correct extension of the central subject which is the specific cases of the region. Besides, there are some areas that are controversial like Venezuela and Bolivia that may not be welcomed adisions there. However what can be done is to move some examples from Latin America in there to here. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Adding to the comments made above. The United States has a long history in the involvement in regime change or attempted regime change as the main article illustrates. For each intervention cited in the main article United States involvement in regime change, there is most likely enough source material to write separate articles in depth. This is exactly the case in regard to the article United States involvement in regime change in Latin America. The page should not be merged but rather expanded into as much depth as possible to include details not mentioned in the first article. Boston1775 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above arguments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the merge makes the article more longer.Hispring (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2020 (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.

POV

I am not watchlisting this article, but am adding here the link describing the POV: [5] Should these problems be resolved via consensus, please ping me so I can offer an opinion on whether the tag should be removed. Should they NOT be resolved, please do not ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I see the POV tag was removed, but the POV re the 2002 coup section was not resolved; this article clearly biases one side of the story, as explained earlier and as clear by looking at ALL of the sources in the 2002 article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Agreed. I opened a request in the dispute resolution noticeboard to discussion with the issue. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thx, Jamez42-- too busy to get involved, but I note that in the writing here about the 2002 coup, there is a noticeable lack of knowledge or understanding about the text, which is quite one-sided. What is surprising about that is that there is considerable text and lots of sources over at the Coup article. Unwatching, ping if necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: No worries :) I would recommend restoring the last version before the discussion was retaken, while the dispute remains unresolved. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material--Bolivia and Venezuela

@Jamez42: Please explain your deletion of well-sourced material on both Bolivia and Venezuela, and what you would do to rectify any concerns. I have created two sections here, one for Bolivia and one for Venezuela. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Bolivia

@Jamez42: Please explain your deletion of well-sourced material re: Bolivia and what you would do to rectify any concerns. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: You continue to say the content that you are adding "well-sourced". yet in this case the paragraph that you're referring to includes only a single source, which is based in declarations by Evo Morales. There also seems to be original research problems and weasel wording, the paragraph said that "many" agreed with this theory, and yet Al Jazeera seems to quote only Morales on this. The paragraph failed to mention which actions are considered as "regime change", and not to mention a non neutral WP:LABEL of "ousted".

If I may, I would also like to advice you to add other parameters to the sources, per the reference format of Wikipedia, such as author, title, publisher name and date. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, here are more sources on US involvement:

https://theintercept.com/2020/06/08/the-nyt-admits-key-falsehoods-that-drove-last-years-coup-in-bolivia-falsehoods-peddled-by-the-u-s-its-media-and-the-nyt/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/world/americas/bolivia-election-evo-morales.html

Feel free to add a Bolivia section. Hrodrik (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the articles seem to deal with involvement of the US governement and rather appear to be analysis of reporting by media outlets. Even if it was the case, it should also be evaluated if the actions were deliberate and were aimed at a change of government. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela

@Jamez42: Please explain your deletion of well-sourced material re: Venezuela and what you would do to rectify any concerns.

Your explanation at Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Venezuela_2 does not justify the deletion of this material. I addressed your concern of using the word "crippling", by putting it in quotes. . There you had said:

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.

I believe I addressed your concern by putting "crippling" in quotes as is the word "debilitating". Both words are int he WP:RS. How do you propose to change that so that it is no longer a problem. I also changed January 2019 to 2019, since the WP:RS for 2019 clearly states that the sanctions have been increasing.

Particular care should be taken considering that because there is an extensive history of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV complaints about the article. I do not see the point of complaining about past problems. The issue is the new material. Are you claiming that the addition is not WP:NPOV and/or is WP:SYNTH. If it is not WP:NPOV, what would you do to fix that? I already asked you before this exact same question in the other section and you never answered the question.

If you claim it is WP:SYNTH, I see no validity to such a claim. The material is in all the referenced material. If you claim it is not, please state exactly what has been synthesized in the sentences that is not in the WP:RS. In this section above you asserted WP:SYN as well, but were not able to prove it.

I also included new WP:RS, but you have asserted no problem with it. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: See the response in the main article's talk page. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Trimming and removing sections

Some of these sections need to be trimmed or removed. There is undue weight about human rights abuses of regimes in some sections and little about actual us involvement in changing the regime like in the Argentina section, which also doesn't specifically detail any mention of involvement in the coup. Some sections should be completely removed like Uruguay which doesn't even allege any involvement of the us in the coup. Other section that should be removed are Peru and El Salvador that only discuss us support for regimes which isn't what this page is about. The Panama section gives undue weight to claims that Omar Torrijos was murdered. GelShick92 (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@GelShick92: The trimming should be done just like in the main article. Likewise, it has eebn established that preservation of power should not be included either. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: I removed and trimmed as discussed. The Argentina and Bolivia sections still don't really discuss US involvement in regime change. It just says they supported the coup which is vague. The Panama section should be changed because there still undue weight about assassination conspiracies. If anything, more should be mentioned about Noriega's overthrow.GelShick92 (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@GelShick92: I have continued with the trimming, please let me know if there are further improvements that could be done. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@GelShick92: --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Venezuela 2020

@David Tornheim: I noticed you copied some info from the main US regime change article, but there is actually some content on Venezuela already listed here, just in a separate "Accusations" section. I would support merging the two sections and moving the content to the main part of the article, rather than the strange special-case section it exists in now, but as it is the two sections are redundant. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Yes, I support combining them, but we should get rid of material that has nothing to do with regime change effort by the U.S. such as:

Chávez died in office in 2013, and was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro. Maduro's presidency has coincided with a decline in Venezuela's socioeconomic status, with crime, inflation, poverty and hunger increasing. Analysts and critics have attributed Venezuela's decline to both Chávez and Maduro's economic policies, while Maduro has blamed speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents.

On 20 May 2018, Maduro was reelected in an election that had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela's modern history, which as a result was described by some analysts as a show election, The majority of nations in the Americas and the Western world refused to recognize the validity of this election and of the pro-Maduro Constituent Assembly, initiating their own sanctions against him and his administration as well, although allies such as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia and Turkey offered support and denounced what they described as interference in Venezuela's domestic affairs.

Maduro was inaugurated for a new term on that date, which resulted in widespread condemnation. On 23 January 2019, the President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, was declared the acting President by that body. Guaidó was recognized as the legitimate president by several nations, including the United States and the Lima Group, as well as the Organization of American States. Maduro disputed Guaidó's claim and broke off diplomatic ties with several nations who recognized Guaidó's claim.

Regarding this last paragraph, something simple indicating that the U.S. was backing regime change by backing Guaido should be included without mentioning all the other details that are talking points for Guaido.

We should also mention the U.S.'s putting a bounty on Maduro's head, sending naval ships with allegations of drug-trafficking. (It's certainly relevant to the recent Macuto Bay raid.)

And we should mention the U.S.'s denial of being involved with the Macuto Bay raid, but include those who have said that the U.S. was aware, involved, and/or supported it. I have seen some WP:RS on that. I'm not sure that having former Green Berets and a U.S. based company makes it relevant to U.S. regime efforts except to the extent the WP:RS tries to link it to the administration. Maybe it being a U.S.-company alone could be relevant, but I don't believe this article includes privately-backed coups as much as state-sponsored and supproted coups.

Anything else that is missing?

I believe it would be better to work this one out until it is somewhat stable before having to deal with a copy of the change to the other article. But I suppose that is up other editors, and I might change my mind based on how this is going... --David Tornheim (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I agree with most of this. Most of the content surrounding Maduro's election is not relevant, but the information about the US and its allies disputing the validity of the elections can be retained (in a more WP:NPOV form) since this has been used as a justification for the regime change efforts. I haven't seen WP:RS linking the Silvercorp coup attempt to the US other than (as you note) the bounty, which served as an incentive for Goudreau et al., but if there are sources for this then it can certainly be included. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Please feel free to start, or we can discuss changes first. I was about to start, but I see some challenges: (1) It would be nice to merge without the POV tag coming with. (2) Each of the paragraphs I suggested deleting end with U.S. regime change efforts. So with that in mind, I am breaking this up into three sections for each paragraph, to see if we can agree on how to fix the problem of WP:SYN and only including context to the extent that the WP:RS does. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I also feel that we should prefer WP:RS--especially high quality scholarly work (e.g. Noam Chomsky)--that independently assesses actions as U.S. involvement in regime change, rather than focus on the U.S. or Venezuelan governments' more subjective interpretations. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I would like to point out that the Canary is generally unreliable and not high quality per WP:RSP--ReyHahn (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Venezuela, 2019 to present should probably be the only period included into this article. Of course while introducing this section, you can mention and attribute to the Bolivarian govenment something like "The Chávez and Maduro governments have stated that the United States has attempted regime change on numerous occasions, including the 2002 coup attempt, x, x, x. In 2019, ...". Though the United States has traditionally denounced the Bolivarian government in Venezuela, overt efforts for regime change have only been seen since 2019. Other than that, the rest is speculation and theories. I am on the fence for including Operation Gideon only because the US was not directly involved. However, the US did support Guaidó, who initially supported a similar operation.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I made this change based on your recommendation. Please feel free to add in "x, x, x." to fill it out. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Economic warfare

Current text:

Chávez died in office in 2013, and was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro. Maduro's presidency has coincided with a decline in Venezuela's socioeconomic status, with crime, inflation, poverty and hunger increasing. Analysts and critics have attributed Venezuela's decline to both Chávez and Maduro's economic policies, while Maduro has blamed speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents.

References

Problem: WP:SYN. The background should only be included to the extent that WP:RS mentioning economic warfare does. The main focus of the content should be on U.S. involvement in regime change efforts, not on the history of what was going on in the country prior to the U.S. getting involved. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sanctions in 2018

Current text:

On 20 May 2018, Maduro was reelected in an election that had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela's modern history, which as a result was described by some analysts as a show election, The majority of nations in the Americas and the Western world refused to recognize the validity of this election and of the pro-Maduro Constituent Assembly, initiating their own sanctions against him and his administration as well, although allies such as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia and Turkey offered support and denounced what they described as interference in Venezuela's domestic affairs.

References

Problem: WP:SYN. The background should only be included to the extent that WP:RS mentioning sanctions whose purpose is regime change does. The main focus of the content should be on U.S. involvement in regime change efforts, not on the history of what was going on in the country prior to the U.S. taking some action. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

23 January 2019

Current text:

Maduro was inaugurated for a new term on that date, which resulted in widespread condemnation. On 23 January 2019, the President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, was declared the acting President by that body. Guaidó was recognized as the legitimate president by several nations, including the United States and the Lima Group, as well as the Organization of American States. Maduro disputed Guaidó's claim and broke off diplomatic ties with several nations who recognized Guaidó's claim. Maduro's government says the crisis is a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States to topple him and control the country's oil reserves. Guaidó rejects the characterization of his actions as a coup, saying that his movement is backed by peaceful volunteers.

References

Problem: WP:SYN. The background should only be included to the extent that WP:RS mentioning U.S. involvement in regime change does. The main focus of the content should be on U.S. involvement in regime change. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Maduro reelection is relatively important is what officially lead to many government to not accept Maduro legitimacy, break relations with Venezuela and subsequently support Guaidó, including US.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, as said above, the information about the US and its allies disputing the validity of the elections can be retained (in a more WP:NPOV form) since this has been used as a justification for the regime change efforts. It can definitely be slimmed down though. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Merging "Accusations" with main text

@David Tornheim: I removed a POV notice, but my intentions was not to merge that section with the section above!--ReyHahn (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: @Cmonghost: suggested moving the material and I agree. I don't see why it should not be moved. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it is mostly minor involvements or Maduro's just accusing US.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn and David Tornheim: This has been discussed quite a bit in a previous discussion, but the main problem with the Accusations section, in my view, is that it involves WP editors' judgment about whether or not content should be labeled as "accusations" or actual regime change efforts, which gets us into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH territory. Moreover, there are aspects of the situation that clearly don't pertain to "accusations" but concrete actions taken by the US (such as sanctions or bounties placed on officials). Better to accurately describe the regime change efforts and/or accusations in the main part of the article, and if the reliable sources indicate that a particular event is only an accusation, that can be made clear in the text. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. That is what is done in the United_States_involvement_in_regime_change, where accused or accusation comes up seven times, and there is no distracting section titled "Accusations". That section didn't come into existence until July 2019 and never had strong support in either article. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have really had a hard time following Talk:United States involvement in regime change, I do not know if a consensus was ever reached to decide what constitutes an "involvement in regime change", but we should clearly detail what has officially led to it and be clear that it is established as so outside for sources that are not partial to (or deliberately against) US or Maduro.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a consensus was ever reached on what constitutes "regime change" for the purposes of this article, unfortunately. From a quick glance, I think the sources currently in the section look pretty solid (looks like mostly mainstream newspapers and scholarly sources) but if there are specific objections to any, we can of course discuss them. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

U.S. involvement in regime change is a scholarly term. We use what the WP:RS does. We discussed this before:

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)

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC) @NYCJosh: You are quoted above. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus to remove the POV tag, even less to merge the sections. It's dissapointing that this was done without seeking further discussion or notifying previous involved editors. Pinging @Cambalachero, Dereck Camacho, Oska, Jogarz1921, Sangdeboeuf, and ZiaLater: (SandyGeorgia asked not to be pinged until a consensus was reached. As ReyHahn accurately points out, the section currently only deals with "minor involvements or Maduro's just accusing US", something that I pointed out some months ago in the section talking about the Accusations:

(...) Chávez accused the United States of being involved (...)
(...) while Maduro has blamed speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents (...)
(...) In early 2015, the Maduro government accused the United States of attempting to overthrow him. (...)
(...) In 2016, Maduro again claimed that the United States was attempting to assist the opposition with a coup attempt. (...)
(...) Maduro's government says the crisis is a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States to topple him and control the country's oil reserves.

The whole section consists in paragraphs with these statements. Terms such a "accused" and "blamed" does not appear to be in other sections, which is why Venezuela has its own -- Jamez42 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's very frustrating and a pity that so much explanation has been disregarded. It's important to note that not only has the definition of regime change has been disputed, but also if the named events constitute said change, or if there was even involvement by the US at all, as it is the case with the 2002 coup.

@David Tornheim:, I ask you to please restore the section to its original version, which means restoring the POV tag and splitting the section. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I would love to say something but I honestly do not have an opinion, I can see good points in both positions. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jamez42: I am sorry for taking out the POV tag, I did not understand the whole problem. I thought that the discussion was closed and as nobody contested the content in "accusation" section in a while I discarded the template. David was around and decided to add more content and merge sections with accusations, in part because the template wasn't there anymore. I propose that we revert to the previous "stable" version.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologize @ReyHahn:, the content of the section is arguably alright without the POV tag if they are described as "Accusations", which is contrary to David's changed. Now that the discussion has been retaken, the section can be further improved, but for that we have to discuss the original version. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to note at first I did not find ReyHahn's diff where they removed the tag; in any case, if the tag is to be restored, the section should be split first. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: There has never been consensus for the accusations (aka allegations) section per #Unnecessary_"accusations"_section. That section is incompatible with the article and United States involvement in regime change. Cmonghost and I have not ignored your arguments; you have ignored ours. You have ignored the consensus that does not support the section. You were the first editor to add the Allegations section on 10:24, 8 July 2019. I believe you were the only editor to keep adding more accusations and allegations, e.g. [6], [7], [8].

Every time Cmonghost or I deleted the "Accusations" section, you put it back: 2 Nov 2019, 31 Dec 2019, 6 Jan 2020 --David Tornheim (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The last stable version was not disputed for several months (WP:SILENCE) and ReyHahn specifically said that they did not want to merge the sections. If we are to comment when Venezuela's section was first included, the section was added on 5 February 2019 by a SPA, was completely unreferenced and had serious neutrality issues. Also, "deleting" is not the same thing as merging.

If the sections are to be merged, its current content has to be significantly trimmed. I think that the events that fit the closest to the article is the Agence France-Presse memo, and even then this should be further discussed. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:SILENCE more carefully. An edit standing for a given period of time does not automatically confer consensus.

As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like. Similarly, in the presence of a revert, there is neither silence nor consensus.

The lengthy discussions about this issue on this talk page are evidence enough that there has not been "silence". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that; nearly five months is still quite a long time. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

But WP:SILENCE is not about time, it's about silence, and there has not been silence: there has been vigorous disagreement. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Trimming

Above Jamez42 says: "If the sections are to be merged, its current content has to be significantly trimmed." I agree that much of the text that Jamez42 added can be removed: [9], [10], [11]. Is it okay to remove all of that? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I'll copy a brief version of the section from 4 January:

On 23 January 2019, the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, was declared the acting President of the country by the body, disputing Maduro's claim and sparking a presidential crisis. Guaidó was recognized as the legitimate president by several nations, including the United States. A memo obtained by Agence France-Presse described that the US Agency for International Development would divert $41.9 million to the crisis in Venezuela, for uses including "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."The New York Times reported that the new sanctions imposed by Donald Trump in August 2019 were part of "his campaign to remove Nicolás Maduro from office."

I still have doubts regarding the relevance of the section when compared to other historic events and so self-evident coups and fear that the only merit for its inclusion in WP:RECENTISM, but it might be a good compromise for the current positions. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There was never any support for that version. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean with "there has never" been? I'm proposing a middle ground and consensus changes; just yesterday ZiaLater expressed that regarding Venezuela, 2019 to present should probably be the only period included into this article. Not only did you trim a single paragraph, but you also changed the wording from the reasons of the sanctions from "human rights violations" to "Venezuela is a threat to U.S. security", which is something that wasn't even discussed or brought up here.

Pinging @SandyGeorgia:, since both the tag was removed and the sections were merged without an agreement. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There was consensus to merge the sections when I merged them. Cmonghost originally proposed it, and I agreed and did the merge. There was never support for the "accusations" section.

Your version is not a compromise. It's is primarily a one-sided piece to promote Guaido as the path to a "democratic transition". This is a particularly surprising claim given his "government's" support for a violent coup with Operation Gideon (2020) and his failure to hold elections within 30 days as an "interim president" as required by Article 233 that he used to declare himself president.[12] All by a man who never ran for election as president and was almost completely unknown to Venezuelans when he made himself president, and whose "government" is not recognized by the U.N.

This article is to focus on U.S. involvement in promoting regime change, not Wikipedia's efforts to assert that Guaido is more legitimate than Maduro.

As for ZiaLater's proposal, he suggested we put: "The Chávez and Maduro governments have stated that the United States has attempted regime change on numerous occasions, including the 2002 coup attempt, x, x, x. In 2019, ...". Although I don't agree completely on reducing everything down so simply (since other WP:RS has made similar claims), I did add that sentence, and asked Zialater if s/he wanted to fill it out as Zialater had initially proposed.

In that same edit, I started removing the lengthy material on accusations you had added [13], [14], [15]. I asked you above if it was okay to remove all of that, but I have not gotten a clear answer from you (or anyone else). That seems the easier way to deal with the problem created by the accusations section, which should not be primarily about what Maduro and Chavez have said, but instead about what WP:RS says about U.S. efforts at regime change. The entire 'accusations' section seems written primarily to discredit Maduro and Chavez rather than an WP:NPOV section about U.S. meddling in Venezuela. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

you also changed the wording from the reasons of the sanctions from "human rights violations" to "Venezuela is a threat to U.S. security", Does it need to be discussed that I put what was actually in the source? There is no mention of alleged "human rights violations" in the cited WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Having an editor make a proposal and you making it because you agree with them is definitely not a consesus, specially given these circumstances and when both ReyHahn and I have said specifically that we disagree with a merge. WP:FORUM is particularly important right now; the current political crisis is already controversial and complex enough to have more inflammatory responses, not to mention that it has been discussed endlessly in other articles and may continue to do so in their talk pages. This article is about "regime change", not about the political crisis, so there should be an agreement on what constitutes that. The "Accusations" section is precisely to lower that bar; if the section is to be merged, it should be about facts and not about accusations, and from what it appears, the 2019 information seems to be more suitable for that. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: The "Accusations" section is precisely to lower that bar; if the section is to be merged, it should be about facts and not about accusations, and from what it appears, the 2019 information seems to be more suitable for that. This perfectly demonstrates the problem with the "Accusations" section. By drawing an arbitrary distinction between events that you personally believe meet the level of "facts" and those you believe only meet the level of "accusations", you are inappropriately inserting your personal opinion into the encyclopedia. If reliable sources describe the US as attempting to engage in regime change efforts, such as installing Guaidó and/or ousting Maduro, or supporting organizations within Venezuela that engage in such efforts, those efforts should be included in a single section, with appropriate context. The current two-section situation, where one section is for events Jamez42 believes occurred, and one is for events Jamez42 does not believe occurred, is untenable. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

To say that I'm the only editor with this position and on top to that to claim that it is merely based on "personal opinions" would be to ignore the rest of the editors that have expressed the same disagreement, such as ReyHahn ("I removed a POV notice, but my intentions was not to merge that section with the section above!", "Because it is mostly minor involvements or Maduro's just accusing US", "I propose that we revert to the previous "stable" version") and ZiaLater ("regarding Venezuela, 2019 to present should probably be the only period included into this article"). If the content is merged then its content should reflect regime change backed by reliable sources, just like the previous Accusations included accusations backed by reliable sources, as it has been repeatedly stated; as simple as that. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• AlmostFrancis When you reverted my edit, you asked in the edit-summary, Why did you remove so much well sources and pertinent content. The idea of trimming out the accusations is being discussed in this section (#Trimming (permalink)) directly above. Please also note that I changed:

"United States ordered sanctions...for human rights violations"

to

"United States ordered sanctions...claiming Venezuela is a threat to for human rights violations"

reflecting the WP:RS that was cited: this article.

Please also compare this with what is in the more comprehensive article United States involvement in regime change. The current version of the corresponding Venezuela section is much shorter. Discussion resumed here about merging in the #Unnecessary "accusations" section. If this and past discussions are hard to follow, please feel free to ask questions. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record: the three edits that keep getting mentioned ([16][17][18]) were copies of content from the Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro articles, as it is clearly tated in the edit summaries, and were a response to this version. In it, the only mentions in the section were the 2002 coup and Maduro's declaration that the presidential crisis was a a coup d'état orchestated by the United States to topple him and control the country's oil reserves, without mentioning details of US involvement. It's also quite different from the current version, even if the edits were removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: If we include the paragraph that I proposed above as the content of the section, the removal of the edits would be alright for me, as well as the inclusion of Venezuela into the main History section. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion taking place on user talk page

FYI. A discussion about this page is taking place on a user talk page here:

• User_talk:ReyHahn#United_States_involvement (permalink)

--David Tornheim (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)