![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
If the US prevented another party/entity from taking power, would that count as regime change? " Regime change is the replacement of one government regime with another". This is what our article says. I ask because 1947–1949: Greece and 1947–1970s: Italy, for example, are sections that discuss the US preventing left-wing parties from taking power. This is foreign intervention, obviously, but I do not think this means it meets "regime change" standards. Replies would be helpful.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
"preservation" should be removed."Disagree per below. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
a separate article could be created for "preserving" or "support"Disagree per below. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Or maybe moves or merges are in order later.Disagree per below. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
If the US prevented another party/entity from taking power, would that count as regime change?Absolutely without question. I think this is common sense. The title is "involvement in regime change", and per [1] by NYCJosh in Scope (again). -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
If a change in regime is possible, imminent, or anticipated, and the US intervenes to stop it, I don't see how that wouldn't constitute US involvement in regime change. The lead is fine as is and I also disagree with the deletions in question. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 03:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@
David Tornheim: Thanks for showing the previous discussion. I have read it over and it seems there was no consensus on whether "prevention" was regime change. They quoted a book that stated "In 1947, Truman launched the first preventive regime changes of the Cold War to ensure that communist parties would not win democratic elections in Italy and France."
There is still an issue with the wording, especially since "preventative regime changes" is not clear phrasing. It reads as if there were governments overthrown in order to establish a regime that would crackdown on communism, not necessarily that preventing communist party participation was regime change itself. There might be more info in that section of the book elaborating on "preventative regime changes", but as said in that discussion, this seems to be the opinion of one expert.
The edits I performed were to avoid a possible WP:COATRACK article where certain international events occurred that get thrown onto this. Every event in this article should be verified by reliable sources as being described as a "regime change" if "regime change" is in the article's title. Simply assuming that a particular event is regime change WP:OR. I also do not agree that we should have a ridiculously long title that includes every possible term either. The article and its title should be concise in order to prevent it from being a COATRACK article.
In summary, yes, the US obviously had and has been invovled in regime change, both covertly and overtly. Yes the US has also been involved in preserving some regimes as well. But this is not an argument on if such events had happened or not. What is important is that the wording and the sources support the scope of this article.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Every event in this article should be verified by reliable sources as being described as a "regime change" if "regime change" is in the article's title.I disagree. If WP:RS describe something that is clearly part of the definition of regime change, it should be included. Another editor mentioned the scholarly work on the definition of regime change in academia. Let's use that as WP:RS and not what the mainstream media defines it to be.
What is important is that the wording and the sources support the scope of this article.True, which is why "preserving a government"--especially one that is about to be toppled and/or voted out of power--is involvement in regime change. But rather than using common sense in the definition, let's find academic sources that define it. Which ones are you thinking of?
@ David Tornheim: I read the source and the author is arguing that prevention does count as regime change. This is one author's opinion, however. The section discusses the domino theory and how both the United States and Soviet Union used "proxy conflicts" as an arugment to defend their security interests. This source could actually be used to add more neutrality to this article and I will attempt to do so momentarily. Again, thanks for the discussion.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 11:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
If we're defining regime change that broadly this article is going to end up as a redundant fork of History of United States foreign policy. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 10:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This article has been mentioned in this AN/I.
I'm leaving this notification to any editor that is interested in reading or participating. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 05:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
= Philippines annexation ==-- NYCJosh ( talk) 20:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Eons of Mollusk: Am I correct in understanding that you made this edit removing the Philippines 1944 because after overthrowing the Japanese occupation, the US annexed the Philippines? Can you please explain why you think the US removing the occupying government and replacing it with its own government is not regime change? If annexation does not count as regime change it would necessitate the removal of a large chunk of Russia involvement in regime change as well, which does not make sense IMO. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 19:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This section seems irrelevant to this article. US entry into WWI had nothing to do with replacing the Habsburg regime, nor was there later a US concerted effort to do so.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 20:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This recently added section was not adequately sourced. It contained four sources, but most of them were low quality, and due to improper formatting, I was unable to determine what one of them even was. This one [10] appears to be a series of transcripts from various television and radio programs, and perhaps part of some kind of political hearing? [11] is an opinion piece, and not reliable for factual claims. The third was an improperly formatted cite to what I think is the book Abiding Interests, written by Whitlam himself, which is obviously not an independent source. And the fourth I don't have access to, but it's only used as a source for the counterargument that the CIA had nothing to do with Whitlam's dismissal. The claim that the CIA somehow orchestrated the removal of a sitting Australian prime minister is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and requires exceptional evidence. I don't think any of these sources meet that standard. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 21:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Red Rock Canyon like I said before I decided to put up the Australia section because there is evidence going both ways, and I realized that it would be likely removed. There was some notice at the top of this page a while ago saying something along the lines of: don't be surprised if something is removed, we're not always working with the most precise evidence and a lot of this is controversial. So I understand again why it was removed and I'm not arguing against you. As for Iraq: 1963 I recommend you take a look at the previous talk section since it was talked to in depth there before doing anything. TheTimesAreAChanging I will go more in depth on US involvement in the First Congo War and try to remove unnecessary background. The Congo Wars are often nicknamed the "African World Wars" due to the fact they are just as complex as the World Wars, however people are generally more familiar with the World Wars than the Congo Wars. That's why I had the long background. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 08:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to try to re-animate the discussion from last year here on the scope and focus of this article. The title of the article refers to regime change but the lede and current article seem to include other things, such as regime preservation and election interference. Questions include: 1) should the title change to reflect this wider focus?, or 2) should the lead and article be tightened to keep the focus on the topic signalled by the title? Specifically, 3) should the article include regime preservation (e.g. China 1898, Laos 1955-60)? 4) should it include tussles for imperial territory that didn't involve regime change (e.g. Somoa 1887-89)?, 5) should it include support for liberation from occupying powers (e.g. France 1945, Kuwait 1991)?, and 6) should it include election interference, given that (e.g. Italy 1948+)? If the answer is yes to most of questions 3-6, I'd argue the answer to (1) needs to be yes too. If the answer is no to any of 3-6, we need to make sure appropriate material is moved to Timeline of United States military operations or Foreign interventions by the United States before deletion. In the last discussion, I think three of us argued for removing regime preservation actions and tightening the lede in relation to that, with maybe two editors disagreeing, so not really a consensus. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
For the US, he names recent scheming in Somalia, Yemen and Syria as involvement in regime change.
GPRamirez5 ( talk) 19:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
To summarise the substantive rather than personalised part of this discussion, Adoring nanny argues that we should adopt a consistent approach to what we include, and GPRamirez5 provides a decent source (an academic press book by a political science assistant professor) suggesting what I've called "regime preservation" should be considered "preventative regime change" and therefore included (i.e. an answer of Yes to my question (3) at the start of this talk section). I'm not sure if I understand O’Rourke's idea of "preventative regime change" but it would be good to have more views on this, and views on my other questions. I realise I didn't explain the election interference one (my question 6). What I meant to say was that a change of administration via a democratic election is not generally seen as a regime change, as the regime form remains stable. Again, any views on that? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I have restored this deletion by Eons of Mollusk which deletes material about Cambodia 1970, which was first added by NYCJosh on 19:30, 22 July 2019. The edit summary for the deletion was:
When you say "I have looked into this coup further", can you please explain what sources you used to come to this conclusion? This line makes me think the material--that survived almost a year without objection--should be included:
Sihanouk's dismissal (which followed constitutional forms, rather than a blatant military coup d'état) immediately produced much speculation as to its causes. ... most others see at least some American involvement.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
When I had previously edited the 1970 Cambodian coup d'état page and the 1970: Cambodia section here and I got the impression from how it was written that the jury is still out on whether the CIA was involved. The reason I think the section should be removed is because it is still unclear. If the historical consensus is that the CIA was involved than keep it. However both articles should be rewritten to be more clear and not be iffy on the subject. As well some stuff is not sourced. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 20:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
"Prince Sihanouk has long claimed that the American CIA 'masterminded' the coup against him. ... There is in fact no evidence of CIA involvement in the 1970 events, but a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces."Now, it would be one thing to say that other sources might disagree with Kiernan or to emphasize that Cambodians were the primary actors in the coup, but Kiernan is one of the world's leading Cambodian scholars, so this is obviously not a FRINGE viewpoint—it may even be the majority view among relevant scholars, and Wikipedia should reflect that unless the academic consensus changes. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 21:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
Hello I recently created the section on the 1982 coup in Chad, because there is direct evidence of US and CIA involvement as linked in the section, however when I was looking into it there seemed to be various inconsistencies within it. First the technical date of regime change maybe off. Habre (the dictator) first attempted to take power in 1979, however failed, but succeeded in 1982. Forces loyal to him still fought between 1979 and 1982, and I could not find when the US began to support his takeover, though from what I found they most certainly did, so the date might need to be changed. Secondly the main sources on Habre's initial rise, previous appointments, and alliance with Felix Malloum on his Wikipedia page do not load or have been deleted since they have been linked, so I did not put down that information. If someone has better sources and more/correct information could they add it and make the appropriate changes. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 22:25, 29 November 2019
I have researched and changed the original dates to more accurate dates, and I have also given detail and background. There is just a bit more sourcing I have to do. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Added the last citation for this section, it should be good now. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Pinging editors @ Eons of Mollusk:@ SharabSalam: to discuss the Panama section. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
For it to count as regime change the government of Canada would of had to of had government change forced upon it by the USYou seem to be mistaken about the scope of the article. It does not need to be "forced", the US only needs to be involved in a regime change for the events to merit inclusion in our article. In the Panama case, this requirement is met. The exception would be if the government remained unchanged after separation, e.g., if the provincial government of BC became the new national government of the independent state of BC. This was not the case in Panama, as a junta took over the government. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but the dictionary definition for "regime" is simply not a reliable source for what "regime change" is. It is not "separatism on its own", it is separatism with the support of the United States which led to a change in the government of the region. Annexation does count as regime change (see my comment in the section below). If other annexations were removed then they should also be restored. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
21:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: I struck my comment above about "dictionary definition" as it's actually from the Encyclopedia Britannica article. My other points stand. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
You will notice that MJ Gasiorowski's Political Regime Change dataset, published in the Journal of Comparative Political Studies, includes Panama 1903. [12] I hope this settles the issue. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to take a look into the information provided, I just don't have access to it, since the website is a payed subscription. I will likely comeback to this topic in the future. — Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 19:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the abstract of the study (as I did not have access to the rest), and I also took a look at other studies on regime change that I could find. It appears to me that the study is just using independence as a starting point and is not including the creation of a country or new political entity as regime change. I will continue looking, but no study I have found has tried to define regime change as including the creation of a country. Though no studies I have found have a focus on its definition. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 04:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: You reverted my addition of 2019 Venezuela--which was conspicuously absent from this page. Inexplicably, you accused me of tendentious editing. I summarized the best WP:RS I found from a simple Google search of U.S. regime change. I am troubled you added such an accusation against an editor in the edit summary (where it cannot be stricken) rather than to assume good faith and follow WP:BRD.
It's clear from comments on this page, that Venezuela needs to have its own section.
In the this RfC above, which you participated in, the closer found four months ago:
[T]here is a consensus to add content regarding "United States involvement in regime change" in Venezuela, just not in the form proposed.
Yet, there is inexplicably no section mentioning U.S. regime change in Venezuela, despite repeated requests to have it added. (e.g. [13] by an IP and [14], [15] by GPRamirez5). Can you explain why that is, when you are a very active editor of this article and talk page, as the #6 top editor of the talk page and the #8 top editor of the article?
I added content by summarizing the WP:RS I found. If your assertion is that it is non- neutral, please explain how you would change the language. I do not see why you have made no attempt to discuss on the talk page per WP:BRD but instead removed the content with an accusation against an editor rather than against the material added. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The U.S. efforts for regime change in Venezuela intensified in January 2019 with the increase of crippling sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and warnings.is not the best phrasing that can be included, and labels such as "crippling" do not help at all with neutrality. Particular care should be taken considering that because there is an extensive history of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV complaints about the article. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 14:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This means that we have to discuss and agree on which actions can be considered as "regime change"
I would be support having the discussion once an actual change of government occurs.[16]
The United States is not seeking a military intervention as a solution to the economic and political crisis in Venezuela, supporting a peaceful and negotiated process, and on December Secretary of State Mike Pompeo further stated did not plan a military intervention in Venezuela. Considering that the article talks about United States
both overt and covert actions aimed at altering, replacing, or preserving foreign governments., not every single action by the US should be included (see WP:ONUS).
U.S. officials have repeatedly said that all options, including military action, are on the table to try to remove Maduro.The article you cite from Reuters also says
The United States has thrown its support behind Guaido and levied broad sanctions against Maduro’s government to pressure for his exit.— cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 19:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is a source (AFP) reporting that the US has funded Guaidó, including paying the salaries of his staff:
[18] Re: sanctions, the reliable sources do report that they have the intention of regime change! Just from the Reuters source above: The United States has thrown its support behind Guaido and levied broad sanctions against Maduro’s government to pressure for his exit.
Bluffs and threats from one of the world's major superpowers are also very consequential and a number of sources reported on Trump's, Bolton's and Pompeo's threats of military action to remove Maduro:
[19]
[20] Note that military action is presented as an alternative if a "peaceful transition" is not possible (i.e., if Maduro steps down willingly, they won't need to forcibly remove him). It's hard to see how these could be interpreted as anything other than threats. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
20:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
"good governance" in Venezuela,
interim government staff salaries or stipends, work-related travel and other costs necessary to ensure full deployment of a transparent financial management system and other activities necessary for a democratic transition.,
non-governmental organizations to create media content and airtime to provide greater reach to Venezuelan citizensand finally
diplomatic efforts by Guaido's supporters as they negotiate with Maduro. Considering the article mostly deals with forced and violent means to change political systems, I'm not sure if this fits into this, specially the last purpose, in the case the aid is for peaceful purposes or a transition. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
President Trump signed an executive order on Monday imposing new economic sanctions on the government of Venezuela, escalating his campaign to remove President Nicolás Maduro from office.
I added this section as a possible version that talks about 2019, gives a brief introduction and deals with both Guaidó's funding and sanctions. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 05:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@ David Tornheim: I was more so saying that if the 2002 coup is added back that it should be separated from the more recent section on Venezuela, unlike how I found it. I understand there is much talk over how to add Venezuela in, and that there is dispute over the 2002 section, and I am not commenting whether I want it back in or not, since you guys are debating whether it should be included. I wasn't surprised when I found it deleted due to the talk right now about it on the page. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 23:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not say this was an attempt at regime change on behalf of the US.That's true, RS don't say it was "on behalf of the US". But it didn't say that anywhere in the article. What it did say is that US-funded institutions were involved, which they were. See also my point here: [22]. Note that the talk page for the Latin America article shouldn't be given as a justification for removing the 2002 coup from this page, because the discussion there is still ongoing. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 03:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@
Jamez42: I strongly disagree with the move of the full section to a separate "Accusations" section. In your edit summary you say Replacing Venezuela section with the established Accusations section from United States involvement in regime change in Latin America
. Actually, your use of the "accusations" section on that page has been contested (by me) and you have yet to reply. See here:
[23]. As I said there:
the purpose of sections is to organize the article, not for editors to assess and label the validity of the information. The pre-existing organization of the article is by country, not by the nature of the content, and aspects that distinguish Venezuela from other countries should be (and already are) in the text, not conveyed through the section layout.
I have moved the information back to the appropriate location. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 02:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll also add that I think the previous version of the 2015-present text, from February 2019, was better. The current version (which is the same as from the Latin America page) is devoted mainly to criticizing Maduro and Chávez rather than discussing the US's role. I think it should be changed back unless there's a good reason to prefer the current version. (you didn't provide one in your edit summary) — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 02:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
training guerillas of the opposition, providing soldiers, "advisers" and/or military equipment to the opposition. Do you have sources for these events or are they general examples?
It was later revealed that the US had prior knowledge of the coup attempt and that members of the US government had ties to prominent participants in the coup. [1] [2]
(...)
However, the United States repeatedly informed the Venezuelan opposition that they would not be supported if there were a coup, [1] [3] warned the Chávez government of the plot [4] and following the coup attempt, President George W. Bush denied the United States' involvement. [5]
References
DocumentsShow
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Al Jazeera
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McCaughan2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aljazeera20090921
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Jamez42 ( talk) 13:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys I added a section on 2002 Venezuela, since it was with the recent section on Venezuela, and I see it has been deleted. I understand there is talk about how to add Venezuela to this, if you guys do decide to re add it make sure it is in a separate section from the main Venezuela section.14:21, 4 January 2020 Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 21:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Also ignore the first date and time on this message. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 23:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have restored a stable version based on the 28 December version of the article, where a Venezuela section remained to be agreed upon, per the RfC decision and to decide which version should be included. I plan to respond to the proposed content paragraph to paragraph, to argue why they should not be included.
Only to emphasize: I agree with including a section of Venezuela about 2019, whose proposed content can be expanded.
Regarding the 2002 coup, I'm seriously considering on including a timeline or an explanation on the events on 11 April, becaue clarifications seem to be needed. Groups "hostile", that disagreed or protest against Chávez are misunderstood to also have been involved in the coup against Chávez, without an explanation of how. The main confusion on this probably comes from the controversy surrounding the events that day, and to which extent were some groups involved. According to the government and its supporters, the coup was planned before the protests against Chávez on 11 April took place, based on versions such as journalist Otto Neustald's. Quoting from the main article, however:
According to Neustald, the message was recorded at least two hours before the killings started. However, this claim has never been proven and is contested by the rest of the reporters present, such as Javier Ignacio Mayorca, Mayela León and Adrián Criscaut, who affirmed that the military officers were informed of the death of Tortoza during the filming of the message. [1]
References
The most accepted version on when the coup really happened was during El Carmonazo, the Carmona Decree, as I believe I have mentioned in previous discussions about coups, where nearly all of the government power branches were dissolved by Carmona. Only the military would have been involved, and even the civil society and military sectors were surprised the Carmona assumed the presidency, so given this it is really unfair, not to say inaccurate, to place responsability of the coup in the civil society.
Pinging editors involved in RfC, to learn about their thoughts @ GPRamirez5: @ Oska: @ Jack Upland: @ Rosguill: @ Cmonghost: @ NYCJosh: @ Darouet: @ Aquillion: @ Adoring nanny: @ ColumbiaXY: @ MaoGo: @ BobFromBrockley: @ My very best wishes: -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Of particular concern is $154,377 given by the endowment to the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, the international arm of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., to assist the main Venezuelan labor union in advancing labor rights.
The Venezuelan union, the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, led the work stoppages that galvanized the opposition to Mr. Chávez. The union's leader, Carlos Ortega, worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who briefly took over from Mr. Chávez, in challenging the government.
The endowment also provided significant resources to the foreign policy wings of the Republican and Democratic parties for work in Venezuela, which sponsored trips to Washington by Chávez critics.
The Bush administration, which has made no secret of its disdain for Mr. Chávez — and his warm relations with nations like Cuba and Iraq — has turned to the endowment to help the opposition to Mr. Chávez.
Another mistake was that, although he had spent months working closely with labour leader Carlos Ortega, he appointed no labor leaders to his cabinet. [1] [2] [3]
References
NYT 20-04
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).SComm
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).@ David Tornheim: You have restored the 2002 section of Venezuela without consensus or explaining the reasons, and this is not the first time that you do. [24] I have repeatedly explained why the involvement of the US is disputed, if any, and why the section should not be included. As such, I ask you to please remove the section and tell me if you have a reply to any of the points I have included above. As far as I can see, you have expressed that you agree with including the 2002 events, but have not explained why. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Eons of Mollusk: Please don't close talk sections [25] the way you have been doing--especially as an involved editor. Many of your summaries are not accurate. Other than in Venezuela politics, I have never seen any editor attempt to close and halt discussion this way, other than non-involved editors closing move or RfC discussions It's unhelpful for a number of reasons: (1) The summaries are non-neutral (2) It halts discussion. I have seen other editors in the Venezuela topic area collapse discussions, which is even worse because (3) Search no longer works (4) Subsections no longer work.
You even changed another user's comment from a year ago
[26].
For example, in
this closure you incorrectly said the answer to the question has "no consensus" and is "
"unresolved" in bold when that is not correct: The issue was resolved by
this RfC that concluded in part,
there is a consensus to add content regarding "United States involvement in regime change" in Venezuela
.
I'm not opposed to making it easier for editors to find newer or older discussions or to having a bot archive discussions that are stale (maybe 90 days old). I would only support closes like these if: (1) Discussion is stale, maybe 90 months old. (2) The summary is accurate. (3) Readers are provided links to all related discussions both before and after. (4) It is closed by a non-involved editor by request to close by notice at the talk page section -or- everyone in the section to be closed is pinged and given time (maybe 14-30 days) to assess whether the proposed closing language is accurate. I think your goal is to help readers find their way to more recent discussion, how about instead (3) is more helpful. You can make your own summary at the bottom, but making it look like a non-involved admin. closed it is not okay IMHO. Note: I did not read all of the closes. Maybe some of them were accurate. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@ David Tornheim: Alright so this is going to be a bit long. First the reason I closed so many sections yesterday was so I could signal the archive bots to archive the material. It has been months since anything has been archived from this page and the talk page is now becoming too large and will eventually become impossible to navigate. As well many of the items that were closed were old and hadn't been interacted with in months. Second I did try and make the summaries correct and neutral but if I got the summaries wrong that is for two reasons a) I was not there for them b) They were incredibly old, however I think this is less my fault and more the fault of the fact nothing has been archived in months. Despite that if the summaries were wrong I recommend that you fix them to be more accurate. Third in regards to describing items as "unresolved" I only did that in sections where the issue was discussed later, and I therefore assumed that it wasn't resolved. If I remember those sections were 1, 3, 4, and 17. Again if that was incorrect please fix them. Fourth if I made mistakes in how these were presented like you mention in 3 & 4 of the first paragraph that was an accident and I apologize. I'm not sure how that happened I just recommend that you fix it if you know the specifics. Fifth if your problem was procedure than I understand but I still stand by my decision in each closure of mine. They were done for a good reason and should be uncontroversial. This brings me to my Sixth point: I will now go through each closure below and justify my decision to close them. However I am going to ask that you remake some edits that I made that have nothing to do with the closures. I am not going to make those edits because I don't want to confuse you and than I accidentally get sanctioned because of said confusion.
Talk Section Closures:
1- The current talk around adding Venezuela is now in section 15. It only makes sense to close this section because the most recent talk on Venezuela is not there anymore. As well referring to this section only, I had made an edit to a comment by a user which you reference above. This was for grammatical reasons as when I read the statement it did not make sense so I tried to fix it. Could you please redo that edit?
2- This section has been dead for nearly a year and it appears the map issue was settled.
3- Same as 1 but switch 15 for 19.
4- Same as 1.
5- For this section while there was a decent amount of talk of which nothing came out, and its hasn't been interacted with for a long time.
7- When I looked at this section it appeared as though the issue was settled and the source was removed.
8- I did not close this article but I think it should be archived soon at some point given how long it's been around however I did not read this section so I can't tell whether the article was settled or not.
9- Same as 7 but the source was kept as opposed to removed.
10- I noticed in 17 that one editor mentions that this talk section was settled and having taken a look at it that appears to be true.
11- Same as 2 but in this case there was not a single response to the initial comment.
12- The Bolivian coup in 2019 was not added on this page and I assumed that the issue was discussed more in depth on other pages. Like 5 nothing came out of this and there has not been discussion in that section for a long time.
13- I was the original creator of this talk section because there was some worry over me adding Chad (1981-1982) onto the main page in regards to its sources. This was among my first edits. Given that I was the only one who wrote in it and no one else has responded since, I thought I had the authority to close it.
14- Same as 1 but switch 15 for 23.
15- I did not close this section but I made an edit around the spacing of something I wrote in this section. It might of been accidentally reversed and if it was, could you fix that?
16- When I looked at this it appeared that the issue of whether to use the term "orchestrated" had been resolved with the editors agreeing to use it.
17- Given that this lead to an editing dispute on another page that seems to have been settled I thought it was okay to close.
18- This links to the previously mentioned dispute, and given that's archived, I thought it was fair to close this section.
23- Since the dispute between me and other editors was resolved with an agreement to remove Australia (1975) and keep Zaire (1996-1997) (with some info added) I thought I had the authority to close it. As well the new more correct title I gave the section was removed, could you put it back?
24- Like 23 this was a dispute between me and other editors over Cambodia. I thought since I agreed that the Cambodian coup of 1970 had enough historical backing to stay I had the authority to close the discussion.
25- As well hopefully once this is all sorted out can we close this section (the one I am typing in) too?
Alright that's all I have to say for now. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 17:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
In light of the discussion above regarding
Eons of Mollusk's inexplicable attempt to unilaterally "close" every previous thread on this talk page, I would like to raise awareness about another aspect of this user's behavior. Eons of Mollusk is a very prolific editor—he is the number two contributor to both
United States involvement in regime change and
Russia involvement in regime change, adding over
100,000 bytes of content to the former and over
85,000 bytes of content to the latter, as measured by Wikipedia's internal tool. You might therefore conclude that Eons of Mollusk is a well-read expert in dozens of countries around the world and specifically the roles that the U.S. and Russia have played historically in influencing the internal affairs of those countries. However, a careful look at virtually any one of his edits makes it obvious that his contributions consist almost entirely of copying sources without attribution from elsewhere on Wikipedia, and then—crucially—adding his own summary of what those sources say. (Because he adds his own summary, he has not previously been called out for copying without attribution, as far as I can tell, but his original summary of sources that he has never actually read sometimes introduces significant errors.) His
"Korean War" edit from little more than a week ago is a case in point: It seems to be impressively sourced at first glance, but the sources are all in different formats, the sfn sources are inaccessible, and Eons of Mollusk's summary is a bit sloppy, with easily-detected typos such as "advcned"
and "armistace."
(More glaringly, Eons of Mollusk describes the prelude to the Korean War as occurring during "the late 50's"
rather than the late 1940s.) What happened here? Very simply, every single source in that edit was copied from our
Korean War article, with Eons of Mollusk not bothering to import the bibliography for the sfn sources or attribute the content in his edit summary. What are "Millett 2007," "Chen 1994," "Barnouin & Yu 2006," and "Stokesbury 1990?" Eons of Mollusk himself may not know, but if you head over to
Korean War (and specifically to
the bibliography as it would have appeared to Eons of Mollusk) you can find out!
At best, there is an admittedly imprecise but not egregiously offensive "pop history" quality to Eons of Mollusk's edits, as seen with the following false but true-sounding statement: "Despite being ordered aginst doing so General
Douglas MacArthur advcned up the 38th Parallel on the Penninsula and intended to end the Northern government."
The
"UN forces invade North Korea" section as it would have appeared to Eons of Mollusk gives a vastly different account of the decision-making process that led to the UN advance into North Korea, as does our
UN offensive into North Korea article, suggesting that MacArthur was repeatedly told that the UN's ultimate objective was to reunite Korea under the leadership of
Syngman Rhee (if possible, and subject to change based on conditions on the ground), that the initial advance into North Korea was led by South Korean forces, and that UN forces joined the offensive six days later after receiving UN authorization and in light of North Korea's refusal to surrender. Meanwhile, none of the citations copied by Eons of Mollusk were used on
Korean War to substantiate an allegation that MacArthur defied a direct order not to invade North Korea; to the contrary, Stokesbury 1990 pp. 79–94 and p. 83 (refs 201 and 208 on
Korean War, which Eons of Mollusk, oddly enough, failed to consolidate into a single reference) are only attached to milquetoast statements that "the ROK [South Korean military] advanced ... into North Korea"
and "President Truman disagreed [with MacArthur], and ordered caution at the Sino-Korean border"
(the border is between North Korea and China, so this doesn't imply a "disagreement" regarding the invasion of North Korea). Finally, the other source copied by Eons of Mollusk, Barnouin & Yu 2006 p. 144 or ref 202 as it would have appeared on
Korean War at the time, merely establishes that "MacArthur made a statement demanding the KPA's [North Korea's] unconditional surrender."
Truman fired MacArthur more than six months after the invasion of North Korea for other reasons that he enumerated at the time, yet Truman never alleged that the invasion of North Korea had been MacArthur's personal side project lacking official justification, although there may have been a temptation in certain U.S. political circles to scapegoat MacArthur for all of the setbacks in the war (which could partially explain Eons of Mollusk's confusion).
I intend to remove this distortion, but given that Eons of Mollusk's entire M.O. is copying citations without attribution and then summarizing them without reading them using his own words, I'm concerned that there could easily be a vast number of essentially fabricated citations or assertions that fail verification in virtually all of his edits, which is compounded by just how prolific he is. I don't expect this editor to stop or to heed my warning voluntarily, but I would strongly advise him to simply copy the summary along with the citation when moving text between articles and to attribute the content to the original article using an edit summary. There is simply no reason for him to be adding his own summary when he hasn't done the research. Furthermore, I am pinging Bumbubookworm, who previously called out Eons of Mollusk for misrepresenting another source that he copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia regarding the 1955 State of Vietnam referendum. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
If the US prevented another party/entity from taking power, would that count as regime change? " Regime change is the replacement of one government regime with another". This is what our article says. I ask because 1947–1949: Greece and 1947–1970s: Italy, for example, are sections that discuss the US preventing left-wing parties from taking power. This is foreign intervention, obviously, but I do not think this means it meets "regime change" standards. Replies would be helpful.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
"preservation" should be removed."Disagree per below. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
a separate article could be created for "preserving" or "support"Disagree per below. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Or maybe moves or merges are in order later.Disagree per below. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
If the US prevented another party/entity from taking power, would that count as regime change?Absolutely without question. I think this is common sense. The title is "involvement in regime change", and per [1] by NYCJosh in Scope (again). -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
If a change in regime is possible, imminent, or anticipated, and the US intervenes to stop it, I don't see how that wouldn't constitute US involvement in regime change. The lead is fine as is and I also disagree with the deletions in question. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 03:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@
David Tornheim: Thanks for showing the previous discussion. I have read it over and it seems there was no consensus on whether "prevention" was regime change. They quoted a book that stated "In 1947, Truman launched the first preventive regime changes of the Cold War to ensure that communist parties would not win democratic elections in Italy and France."
There is still an issue with the wording, especially since "preventative regime changes" is not clear phrasing. It reads as if there were governments overthrown in order to establish a regime that would crackdown on communism, not necessarily that preventing communist party participation was regime change itself. There might be more info in that section of the book elaborating on "preventative regime changes", but as said in that discussion, this seems to be the opinion of one expert.
The edits I performed were to avoid a possible WP:COATRACK article where certain international events occurred that get thrown onto this. Every event in this article should be verified by reliable sources as being described as a "regime change" if "regime change" is in the article's title. Simply assuming that a particular event is regime change WP:OR. I also do not agree that we should have a ridiculously long title that includes every possible term either. The article and its title should be concise in order to prevent it from being a COATRACK article.
In summary, yes, the US obviously had and has been invovled in regime change, both covertly and overtly. Yes the US has also been involved in preserving some regimes as well. But this is not an argument on if such events had happened or not. What is important is that the wording and the sources support the scope of this article.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Every event in this article should be verified by reliable sources as being described as a "regime change" if "regime change" is in the article's title.I disagree. If WP:RS describe something that is clearly part of the definition of regime change, it should be included. Another editor mentioned the scholarly work on the definition of regime change in academia. Let's use that as WP:RS and not what the mainstream media defines it to be.
What is important is that the wording and the sources support the scope of this article.True, which is why "preserving a government"--especially one that is about to be toppled and/or voted out of power--is involvement in regime change. But rather than using common sense in the definition, let's find academic sources that define it. Which ones are you thinking of?
@ David Tornheim: I read the source and the author is arguing that prevention does count as regime change. This is one author's opinion, however. The section discusses the domino theory and how both the United States and Soviet Union used "proxy conflicts" as an arugment to defend their security interests. This source could actually be used to add more neutrality to this article and I will attempt to do so momentarily. Again, thanks for the discussion.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 11:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
If we're defining regime change that broadly this article is going to end up as a redundant fork of History of United States foreign policy. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 10:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This article has been mentioned in this AN/I.
I'm leaving this notification to any editor that is interested in reading or participating. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 05:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
= Philippines annexation ==-- NYCJosh ( talk) 20:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Eons of Mollusk: Am I correct in understanding that you made this edit removing the Philippines 1944 because after overthrowing the Japanese occupation, the US annexed the Philippines? Can you please explain why you think the US removing the occupying government and replacing it with its own government is not regime change? If annexation does not count as regime change it would necessitate the removal of a large chunk of Russia involvement in regime change as well, which does not make sense IMO. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 19:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This section seems irrelevant to this article. US entry into WWI had nothing to do with replacing the Habsburg regime, nor was there later a US concerted effort to do so.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 20:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This recently added section was not adequately sourced. It contained four sources, but most of them were low quality, and due to improper formatting, I was unable to determine what one of them even was. This one [10] appears to be a series of transcripts from various television and radio programs, and perhaps part of some kind of political hearing? [11] is an opinion piece, and not reliable for factual claims. The third was an improperly formatted cite to what I think is the book Abiding Interests, written by Whitlam himself, which is obviously not an independent source. And the fourth I don't have access to, but it's only used as a source for the counterargument that the CIA had nothing to do with Whitlam's dismissal. The claim that the CIA somehow orchestrated the removal of a sitting Australian prime minister is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and requires exceptional evidence. I don't think any of these sources meet that standard. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 21:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Red Rock Canyon like I said before I decided to put up the Australia section because there is evidence going both ways, and I realized that it would be likely removed. There was some notice at the top of this page a while ago saying something along the lines of: don't be surprised if something is removed, we're not always working with the most precise evidence and a lot of this is controversial. So I understand again why it was removed and I'm not arguing against you. As for Iraq: 1963 I recommend you take a look at the previous talk section since it was talked to in depth there before doing anything. TheTimesAreAChanging I will go more in depth on US involvement in the First Congo War and try to remove unnecessary background. The Congo Wars are often nicknamed the "African World Wars" due to the fact they are just as complex as the World Wars, however people are generally more familiar with the World Wars than the Congo Wars. That's why I had the long background. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 08:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to try to re-animate the discussion from last year here on the scope and focus of this article. The title of the article refers to regime change but the lede and current article seem to include other things, such as regime preservation and election interference. Questions include: 1) should the title change to reflect this wider focus?, or 2) should the lead and article be tightened to keep the focus on the topic signalled by the title? Specifically, 3) should the article include regime preservation (e.g. China 1898, Laos 1955-60)? 4) should it include tussles for imperial territory that didn't involve regime change (e.g. Somoa 1887-89)?, 5) should it include support for liberation from occupying powers (e.g. France 1945, Kuwait 1991)?, and 6) should it include election interference, given that (e.g. Italy 1948+)? If the answer is yes to most of questions 3-6, I'd argue the answer to (1) needs to be yes too. If the answer is no to any of 3-6, we need to make sure appropriate material is moved to Timeline of United States military operations or Foreign interventions by the United States before deletion. In the last discussion, I think three of us argued for removing regime preservation actions and tightening the lede in relation to that, with maybe two editors disagreeing, so not really a consensus. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
For the US, he names recent scheming in Somalia, Yemen and Syria as involvement in regime change.
GPRamirez5 ( talk) 19:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
To summarise the substantive rather than personalised part of this discussion, Adoring nanny argues that we should adopt a consistent approach to what we include, and GPRamirez5 provides a decent source (an academic press book by a political science assistant professor) suggesting what I've called "regime preservation" should be considered "preventative regime change" and therefore included (i.e. an answer of Yes to my question (3) at the start of this talk section). I'm not sure if I understand O’Rourke's idea of "preventative regime change" but it would be good to have more views on this, and views on my other questions. I realise I didn't explain the election interference one (my question 6). What I meant to say was that a change of administration via a democratic election is not generally seen as a regime change, as the regime form remains stable. Again, any views on that? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I have restored this deletion by Eons of Mollusk which deletes material about Cambodia 1970, which was first added by NYCJosh on 19:30, 22 July 2019. The edit summary for the deletion was:
When you say "I have looked into this coup further", can you please explain what sources you used to come to this conclusion? This line makes me think the material--that survived almost a year without objection--should be included:
Sihanouk's dismissal (which followed constitutional forms, rather than a blatant military coup d'état) immediately produced much speculation as to its causes. ... most others see at least some American involvement.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
When I had previously edited the 1970 Cambodian coup d'état page and the 1970: Cambodia section here and I got the impression from how it was written that the jury is still out on whether the CIA was involved. The reason I think the section should be removed is because it is still unclear. If the historical consensus is that the CIA was involved than keep it. However both articles should be rewritten to be more clear and not be iffy on the subject. As well some stuff is not sourced. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 20:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
"Prince Sihanouk has long claimed that the American CIA 'masterminded' the coup against him. ... There is in fact no evidence of CIA involvement in the 1970 events, but a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces."Now, it would be one thing to say that other sources might disagree with Kiernan or to emphasize that Cambodians were the primary actors in the coup, but Kiernan is one of the world's leading Cambodian scholars, so this is obviously not a FRINGE viewpoint—it may even be the majority view among relevant scholars, and Wikipedia should reflect that unless the academic consensus changes. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 21:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
Hello I recently created the section on the 1982 coup in Chad, because there is direct evidence of US and CIA involvement as linked in the section, however when I was looking into it there seemed to be various inconsistencies within it. First the technical date of regime change maybe off. Habre (the dictator) first attempted to take power in 1979, however failed, but succeeded in 1982. Forces loyal to him still fought between 1979 and 1982, and I could not find when the US began to support his takeover, though from what I found they most certainly did, so the date might need to be changed. Secondly the main sources on Habre's initial rise, previous appointments, and alliance with Felix Malloum on his Wikipedia page do not load or have been deleted since they have been linked, so I did not put down that information. If someone has better sources and more/correct information could they add it and make the appropriate changes. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 22:25, 29 November 2019
I have researched and changed the original dates to more accurate dates, and I have also given detail and background. There is just a bit more sourcing I have to do. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Added the last citation for this section, it should be good now. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Pinging editors @ Eons of Mollusk:@ SharabSalam: to discuss the Panama section. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
For it to count as regime change the government of Canada would of had to of had government change forced upon it by the USYou seem to be mistaken about the scope of the article. It does not need to be "forced", the US only needs to be involved in a regime change for the events to merit inclusion in our article. In the Panama case, this requirement is met. The exception would be if the government remained unchanged after separation, e.g., if the provincial government of BC became the new national government of the independent state of BC. This was not the case in Panama, as a junta took over the government. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but the dictionary definition for "regime" is simply not a reliable source for what "regime change" is. It is not "separatism on its own", it is separatism with the support of the United States which led to a change in the government of the region. Annexation does count as regime change (see my comment in the section below). If other annexations were removed then they should also be restored. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
21:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: I struck my comment above about "dictionary definition" as it's actually from the Encyclopedia Britannica article. My other points stand. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
You will notice that MJ Gasiorowski's Political Regime Change dataset, published in the Journal of Comparative Political Studies, includes Panama 1903. [12] I hope this settles the issue. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to take a look into the information provided, I just don't have access to it, since the website is a payed subscription. I will likely comeback to this topic in the future. — Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 19:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the abstract of the study (as I did not have access to the rest), and I also took a look at other studies on regime change that I could find. It appears to me that the study is just using independence as a starting point and is not including the creation of a country or new political entity as regime change. I will continue looking, but no study I have found has tried to define regime change as including the creation of a country. Though no studies I have found have a focus on its definition. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 04:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: You reverted my addition of 2019 Venezuela--which was conspicuously absent from this page. Inexplicably, you accused me of tendentious editing. I summarized the best WP:RS I found from a simple Google search of U.S. regime change. I am troubled you added such an accusation against an editor in the edit summary (where it cannot be stricken) rather than to assume good faith and follow WP:BRD.
It's clear from comments on this page, that Venezuela needs to have its own section.
In the this RfC above, which you participated in, the closer found four months ago:
[T]here is a consensus to add content regarding "United States involvement in regime change" in Venezuela, just not in the form proposed.
Yet, there is inexplicably no section mentioning U.S. regime change in Venezuela, despite repeated requests to have it added. (e.g. [13] by an IP and [14], [15] by GPRamirez5). Can you explain why that is, when you are a very active editor of this article and talk page, as the #6 top editor of the talk page and the #8 top editor of the article?
I added content by summarizing the WP:RS I found. If your assertion is that it is non- neutral, please explain how you would change the language. I do not see why you have made no attempt to discuss on the talk page per WP:BRD but instead removed the content with an accusation against an editor rather than against the material added. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The U.S. efforts for regime change in Venezuela intensified in January 2019 with the increase of crippling sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and warnings.is not the best phrasing that can be included, and labels such as "crippling" do not help at all with neutrality. Particular care should be taken considering that because there is an extensive history of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV complaints about the article. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 14:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This means that we have to discuss and agree on which actions can be considered as "regime change"
I would be support having the discussion once an actual change of government occurs.[16]
The United States is not seeking a military intervention as a solution to the economic and political crisis in Venezuela, supporting a peaceful and negotiated process, and on December Secretary of State Mike Pompeo further stated did not plan a military intervention in Venezuela. Considering that the article talks about United States
both overt and covert actions aimed at altering, replacing, or preserving foreign governments., not every single action by the US should be included (see WP:ONUS).
U.S. officials have repeatedly said that all options, including military action, are on the table to try to remove Maduro.The article you cite from Reuters also says
The United States has thrown its support behind Guaido and levied broad sanctions against Maduro’s government to pressure for his exit.— cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 19:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is a source (AFP) reporting that the US has funded Guaidó, including paying the salaries of his staff:
[18] Re: sanctions, the reliable sources do report that they have the intention of regime change! Just from the Reuters source above: The United States has thrown its support behind Guaido and levied broad sanctions against Maduro’s government to pressure for his exit.
Bluffs and threats from one of the world's major superpowers are also very consequential and a number of sources reported on Trump's, Bolton's and Pompeo's threats of military action to remove Maduro:
[19]
[20] Note that military action is presented as an alternative if a "peaceful transition" is not possible (i.e., if Maduro steps down willingly, they won't need to forcibly remove him). It's hard to see how these could be interpreted as anything other than threats. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
20:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
"good governance" in Venezuela,
interim government staff salaries or stipends, work-related travel and other costs necessary to ensure full deployment of a transparent financial management system and other activities necessary for a democratic transition.,
non-governmental organizations to create media content and airtime to provide greater reach to Venezuelan citizensand finally
diplomatic efforts by Guaido's supporters as they negotiate with Maduro. Considering the article mostly deals with forced and violent means to change political systems, I'm not sure if this fits into this, specially the last purpose, in the case the aid is for peaceful purposes or a transition. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
President Trump signed an executive order on Monday imposing new economic sanctions on the government of Venezuela, escalating his campaign to remove President Nicolás Maduro from office.
I added this section as a possible version that talks about 2019, gives a brief introduction and deals with both Guaidó's funding and sanctions. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 05:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@ David Tornheim: I was more so saying that if the 2002 coup is added back that it should be separated from the more recent section on Venezuela, unlike how I found it. I understand there is much talk over how to add Venezuela in, and that there is dispute over the 2002 section, and I am not commenting whether I want it back in or not, since you guys are debating whether it should be included. I wasn't surprised when I found it deleted due to the talk right now about it on the page. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 23:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not say this was an attempt at regime change on behalf of the US.That's true, RS don't say it was "on behalf of the US". But it didn't say that anywhere in the article. What it did say is that US-funded institutions were involved, which they were. See also my point here: [22]. Note that the talk page for the Latin America article shouldn't be given as a justification for removing the 2002 coup from this page, because the discussion there is still ongoing. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 03:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@
Jamez42: I strongly disagree with the move of the full section to a separate "Accusations" section. In your edit summary you say Replacing Venezuela section with the established Accusations section from United States involvement in regime change in Latin America
. Actually, your use of the "accusations" section on that page has been contested (by me) and you have yet to reply. See here:
[23]. As I said there:
the purpose of sections is to organize the article, not for editors to assess and label the validity of the information. The pre-existing organization of the article is by country, not by the nature of the content, and aspects that distinguish Venezuela from other countries should be (and already are) in the text, not conveyed through the section layout.
I have moved the information back to the appropriate location. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 02:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll also add that I think the previous version of the 2015-present text, from February 2019, was better. The current version (which is the same as from the Latin America page) is devoted mainly to criticizing Maduro and Chávez rather than discussing the US's role. I think it should be changed back unless there's a good reason to prefer the current version. (you didn't provide one in your edit summary) — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 02:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
training guerillas of the opposition, providing soldiers, "advisers" and/or military equipment to the opposition. Do you have sources for these events or are they general examples?
It was later revealed that the US had prior knowledge of the coup attempt and that members of the US government had ties to prominent participants in the coup. [1] [2]
(...)
However, the United States repeatedly informed the Venezuelan opposition that they would not be supported if there were a coup, [1] [3] warned the Chávez government of the plot [4] and following the coup attempt, President George W. Bush denied the United States' involvement. [5]
References
DocumentsShow
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Al Jazeera
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McCaughan2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aljazeera20090921
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Jamez42 ( talk) 13:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys I added a section on 2002 Venezuela, since it was with the recent section on Venezuela, and I see it has been deleted. I understand there is talk about how to add Venezuela to this, if you guys do decide to re add it make sure it is in a separate section from the main Venezuela section.14:21, 4 January 2020 Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 21:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Also ignore the first date and time on this message. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 23:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have restored a stable version based on the 28 December version of the article, where a Venezuela section remained to be agreed upon, per the RfC decision and to decide which version should be included. I plan to respond to the proposed content paragraph to paragraph, to argue why they should not be included.
Only to emphasize: I agree with including a section of Venezuela about 2019, whose proposed content can be expanded.
Regarding the 2002 coup, I'm seriously considering on including a timeline or an explanation on the events on 11 April, becaue clarifications seem to be needed. Groups "hostile", that disagreed or protest against Chávez are misunderstood to also have been involved in the coup against Chávez, without an explanation of how. The main confusion on this probably comes from the controversy surrounding the events that day, and to which extent were some groups involved. According to the government and its supporters, the coup was planned before the protests against Chávez on 11 April took place, based on versions such as journalist Otto Neustald's. Quoting from the main article, however:
According to Neustald, the message was recorded at least two hours before the killings started. However, this claim has never been proven and is contested by the rest of the reporters present, such as Javier Ignacio Mayorca, Mayela León and Adrián Criscaut, who affirmed that the military officers were informed of the death of Tortoza during the filming of the message. [1]
References
The most accepted version on when the coup really happened was during El Carmonazo, the Carmona Decree, as I believe I have mentioned in previous discussions about coups, where nearly all of the government power branches were dissolved by Carmona. Only the military would have been involved, and even the civil society and military sectors were surprised the Carmona assumed the presidency, so given this it is really unfair, not to say inaccurate, to place responsability of the coup in the civil society.
Pinging editors involved in RfC, to learn about their thoughts @ GPRamirez5: @ Oska: @ Jack Upland: @ Rosguill: @ Cmonghost: @ NYCJosh: @ Darouet: @ Aquillion: @ Adoring nanny: @ ColumbiaXY: @ MaoGo: @ BobFromBrockley: @ My very best wishes: -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Of particular concern is $154,377 given by the endowment to the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, the international arm of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., to assist the main Venezuelan labor union in advancing labor rights.
The Venezuelan union, the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, led the work stoppages that galvanized the opposition to Mr. Chávez. The union's leader, Carlos Ortega, worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who briefly took over from Mr. Chávez, in challenging the government.
The endowment also provided significant resources to the foreign policy wings of the Republican and Democratic parties for work in Venezuela, which sponsored trips to Washington by Chávez critics.
The Bush administration, which has made no secret of its disdain for Mr. Chávez — and his warm relations with nations like Cuba and Iraq — has turned to the endowment to help the opposition to Mr. Chávez.
Another mistake was that, although he had spent months working closely with labour leader Carlos Ortega, he appointed no labor leaders to his cabinet. [1] [2] [3]
References
NYT 20-04
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).SComm
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).@ David Tornheim: You have restored the 2002 section of Venezuela without consensus or explaining the reasons, and this is not the first time that you do. [24] I have repeatedly explained why the involvement of the US is disputed, if any, and why the section should not be included. As such, I ask you to please remove the section and tell me if you have a reply to any of the points I have included above. As far as I can see, you have expressed that you agree with including the 2002 events, but have not explained why. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Eons of Mollusk: Please don't close talk sections [25] the way you have been doing--especially as an involved editor. Many of your summaries are not accurate. Other than in Venezuela politics, I have never seen any editor attempt to close and halt discussion this way, other than non-involved editors closing move or RfC discussions It's unhelpful for a number of reasons: (1) The summaries are non-neutral (2) It halts discussion. I have seen other editors in the Venezuela topic area collapse discussions, which is even worse because (3) Search no longer works (4) Subsections no longer work.
You even changed another user's comment from a year ago
[26].
For example, in
this closure you incorrectly said the answer to the question has "no consensus" and is "
"unresolved" in bold when that is not correct: The issue was resolved by
this RfC that concluded in part,
there is a consensus to add content regarding "United States involvement in regime change" in Venezuela
.
I'm not opposed to making it easier for editors to find newer or older discussions or to having a bot archive discussions that are stale (maybe 90 days old). I would only support closes like these if: (1) Discussion is stale, maybe 90 months old. (2) The summary is accurate. (3) Readers are provided links to all related discussions both before and after. (4) It is closed by a non-involved editor by request to close by notice at the talk page section -or- everyone in the section to be closed is pinged and given time (maybe 14-30 days) to assess whether the proposed closing language is accurate. I think your goal is to help readers find their way to more recent discussion, how about instead (3) is more helpful. You can make your own summary at the bottom, but making it look like a non-involved admin. closed it is not okay IMHO. Note: I did not read all of the closes. Maybe some of them were accurate. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@ David Tornheim: Alright so this is going to be a bit long. First the reason I closed so many sections yesterday was so I could signal the archive bots to archive the material. It has been months since anything has been archived from this page and the talk page is now becoming too large and will eventually become impossible to navigate. As well many of the items that were closed were old and hadn't been interacted with in months. Second I did try and make the summaries correct and neutral but if I got the summaries wrong that is for two reasons a) I was not there for them b) They were incredibly old, however I think this is less my fault and more the fault of the fact nothing has been archived in months. Despite that if the summaries were wrong I recommend that you fix them to be more accurate. Third in regards to describing items as "unresolved" I only did that in sections where the issue was discussed later, and I therefore assumed that it wasn't resolved. If I remember those sections were 1, 3, 4, and 17. Again if that was incorrect please fix them. Fourth if I made mistakes in how these were presented like you mention in 3 & 4 of the first paragraph that was an accident and I apologize. I'm not sure how that happened I just recommend that you fix it if you know the specifics. Fifth if your problem was procedure than I understand but I still stand by my decision in each closure of mine. They were done for a good reason and should be uncontroversial. This brings me to my Sixth point: I will now go through each closure below and justify my decision to close them. However I am going to ask that you remake some edits that I made that have nothing to do with the closures. I am not going to make those edits because I don't want to confuse you and than I accidentally get sanctioned because of said confusion.
Talk Section Closures:
1- The current talk around adding Venezuela is now in section 15. It only makes sense to close this section because the most recent talk on Venezuela is not there anymore. As well referring to this section only, I had made an edit to a comment by a user which you reference above. This was for grammatical reasons as when I read the statement it did not make sense so I tried to fix it. Could you please redo that edit?
2- This section has been dead for nearly a year and it appears the map issue was settled.
3- Same as 1 but switch 15 for 19.
4- Same as 1.
5- For this section while there was a decent amount of talk of which nothing came out, and its hasn't been interacted with for a long time.
7- When I looked at this section it appeared as though the issue was settled and the source was removed.
8- I did not close this article but I think it should be archived soon at some point given how long it's been around however I did not read this section so I can't tell whether the article was settled or not.
9- Same as 7 but the source was kept as opposed to removed.
10- I noticed in 17 that one editor mentions that this talk section was settled and having taken a look at it that appears to be true.
11- Same as 2 but in this case there was not a single response to the initial comment.
12- The Bolivian coup in 2019 was not added on this page and I assumed that the issue was discussed more in depth on other pages. Like 5 nothing came out of this and there has not been discussion in that section for a long time.
13- I was the original creator of this talk section because there was some worry over me adding Chad (1981-1982) onto the main page in regards to its sources. This was among my first edits. Given that I was the only one who wrote in it and no one else has responded since, I thought I had the authority to close it.
14- Same as 1 but switch 15 for 23.
15- I did not close this section but I made an edit around the spacing of something I wrote in this section. It might of been accidentally reversed and if it was, could you fix that?
16- When I looked at this it appeared that the issue of whether to use the term "orchestrated" had been resolved with the editors agreeing to use it.
17- Given that this lead to an editing dispute on another page that seems to have been settled I thought it was okay to close.
18- This links to the previously mentioned dispute, and given that's archived, I thought it was fair to close this section.
23- Since the dispute between me and other editors was resolved with an agreement to remove Australia (1975) and keep Zaire (1996-1997) (with some info added) I thought I had the authority to close it. As well the new more correct title I gave the section was removed, could you put it back?
24- Like 23 this was a dispute between me and other editors over Cambodia. I thought since I agreed that the Cambodian coup of 1970 had enough historical backing to stay I had the authority to close the discussion.
25- As well hopefully once this is all sorted out can we close this section (the one I am typing in) too?
Alright that's all I have to say for now. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 17:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
In light of the discussion above regarding
Eons of Mollusk's inexplicable attempt to unilaterally "close" every previous thread on this talk page, I would like to raise awareness about another aspect of this user's behavior. Eons of Mollusk is a very prolific editor—he is the number two contributor to both
United States involvement in regime change and
Russia involvement in regime change, adding over
100,000 bytes of content to the former and over
85,000 bytes of content to the latter, as measured by Wikipedia's internal tool. You might therefore conclude that Eons of Mollusk is a well-read expert in dozens of countries around the world and specifically the roles that the U.S. and Russia have played historically in influencing the internal affairs of those countries. However, a careful look at virtually any one of his edits makes it obvious that his contributions consist almost entirely of copying sources without attribution from elsewhere on Wikipedia, and then—crucially—adding his own summary of what those sources say. (Because he adds his own summary, he has not previously been called out for copying without attribution, as far as I can tell, but his original summary of sources that he has never actually read sometimes introduces significant errors.) His
"Korean War" edit from little more than a week ago is a case in point: It seems to be impressively sourced at first glance, but the sources are all in different formats, the sfn sources are inaccessible, and Eons of Mollusk's summary is a bit sloppy, with easily-detected typos such as "advcned"
and "armistace."
(More glaringly, Eons of Mollusk describes the prelude to the Korean War as occurring during "the late 50's"
rather than the late 1940s.) What happened here? Very simply, every single source in that edit was copied from our
Korean War article, with Eons of Mollusk not bothering to import the bibliography for the sfn sources or attribute the content in his edit summary. What are "Millett 2007," "Chen 1994," "Barnouin & Yu 2006," and "Stokesbury 1990?" Eons of Mollusk himself may not know, but if you head over to
Korean War (and specifically to
the bibliography as it would have appeared to Eons of Mollusk) you can find out!
At best, there is an admittedly imprecise but not egregiously offensive "pop history" quality to Eons of Mollusk's edits, as seen with the following false but true-sounding statement: "Despite being ordered aginst doing so General
Douglas MacArthur advcned up the 38th Parallel on the Penninsula and intended to end the Northern government."
The
"UN forces invade North Korea" section as it would have appeared to Eons of Mollusk gives a vastly different account of the decision-making process that led to the UN advance into North Korea, as does our
UN offensive into North Korea article, suggesting that MacArthur was repeatedly told that the UN's ultimate objective was to reunite Korea under the leadership of
Syngman Rhee (if possible, and subject to change based on conditions on the ground), that the initial advance into North Korea was led by South Korean forces, and that UN forces joined the offensive six days later after receiving UN authorization and in light of North Korea's refusal to surrender. Meanwhile, none of the citations copied by Eons of Mollusk were used on
Korean War to substantiate an allegation that MacArthur defied a direct order not to invade North Korea; to the contrary, Stokesbury 1990 pp. 79–94 and p. 83 (refs 201 and 208 on
Korean War, which Eons of Mollusk, oddly enough, failed to consolidate into a single reference) are only attached to milquetoast statements that "the ROK [South Korean military] advanced ... into North Korea"
and "President Truman disagreed [with MacArthur], and ordered caution at the Sino-Korean border"
(the border is between North Korea and China, so this doesn't imply a "disagreement" regarding the invasion of North Korea). Finally, the other source copied by Eons of Mollusk, Barnouin & Yu 2006 p. 144 or ref 202 as it would have appeared on
Korean War at the time, merely establishes that "MacArthur made a statement demanding the KPA's [North Korea's] unconditional surrender."
Truman fired MacArthur more than six months after the invasion of North Korea for other reasons that he enumerated at the time, yet Truman never alleged that the invasion of North Korea had been MacArthur's personal side project lacking official justification, although there may have been a temptation in certain U.S. political circles to scapegoat MacArthur for all of the setbacks in the war (which could partially explain Eons of Mollusk's confusion).
I intend to remove this distortion, but given that Eons of Mollusk's entire M.O. is copying citations without attribution and then summarizing them without reading them using his own words, I'm concerned that there could easily be a vast number of essentially fabricated citations or assertions that fail verification in virtually all of his edits, which is compounded by just how prolific he is. I don't expect this editor to stop or to heed my warning voluntarily, but I would strongly advise him to simply copy the summary along with the citation when moving text between articles and to attribute the content to the original article using an edit summary. There is simply no reason for him to be adding his own summary when he hasn't done the research. Furthermore, I am pinging Bumbubookworm, who previously called out Eons of Mollusk for misrepresenting another source that he copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia regarding the 1955 State of Vietnam referendum. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)