Talk:United States involvement in regime change

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2022: Pakistan; a regime change?

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

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

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

Entropyandvodka: "actions undertaken to oust a prime minister from politics (ultimately leading to his imprisonment) certainly constitute regime change. The cable was reported with reliable sources, so that aspect of it isn't really for us to evaluate." Neither cited source ([1], [2]) labels the events in question as a "regime change," so that aspect (i.e., the key factor determining inclusion or exclusion here) is very much "for us to evaluate."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China 1945-1949

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

An IP would not like the pre-1949 US intervention to be included here [3]. They argue that the KMT enjoyed diplomatic recognition as the legitimate ruling government of China while the CPC did not, and that's true. However, the United States invested huge quantities of resources and personnel in a failed effort to install one government and topple another that controlled significant (and increasing) swaths of China from 1945 onwards. Just as importantly, the thrust of American policy was largely unchanged once the CPC won the war, and we cover later regime change efforts here. For these reasons, American efforts to determine China's government from 1945 onwards should be included in this article, which is a reference source. If anything, we might be able to find a source that argues that this doesn't constitute an effort at regime change, and cite it. -Darouet (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Axis WWII powers "puppet regimes"?

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

Venezuela

Information provided from reliable sources is being removed. A user is moving the goalposts of the article saying "explain how verbal support is regime change". Well, the sources have clearly explained it (recognition of Guaidó and sanctions) and the user's argument is based on the their original interpretation that only words were exchanged. Wikipedia users are not here to "explain" anything to readers, we use reliable secondary sources for that. So ReyHahn, can you explain why you are removing reliably sourced information and promoting your own original research?--WMrapids (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, you're insisting in reinstating a section that has been repeatedly disputed in the past. You might want to take a look at the archives and offer a new argument for this first. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you seemingly bludgeoning users you disagree with until they walked away. Not happening here, especially since we have the source. WMrapids (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, took a look. Two discussions were about the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt and one was about the sanctions. The latter you removed citing your typical WP:COATRACK argument, WP:RECENTISM and the apparent partisanship of CEPR. However, none of these are related to the recent edits that were placed.

You simply dismissing the recent edits and saying that this was already discussed in the past is misleading. This is no longer recent and there are scholarly authors who discuss the attempted regime change in books, directly mentioning the sanctions. So please, can you provide a valid explanation for removal as well? WMrapids (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks. You have already started casting aspersions again in related RfCs, and this is not the first time that I have warned you.

As I stated in the related Latin America article, the main problem is that mere support (which isn't is being conflated with actual involvement. As your changes themselves concede, the plan for an interim presidency came from López and Guaidó themselves, not the US. ReyHahn will probably be able to expand on this too. Concluding otherwise is a personal interpretation and WP:SYNTH.

The section has been disputed both in the past and in the present by several editors, so I kindly ask you to stop. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It says United States involvement, not leadership. That is apparent in other entries in this article as well.

Your argument seems to be WP:VAGUEWAVE since you just casually mention WP:SYNTH without providing an explanation. This information is coming from dozens of sources that describe the actions as regime change.

You (and others) constantly say "everyone else" disagrees, yet provide no valid argument to remove this information.

Is there a dispute resolution process we can take besides the same four users making the same stale arguments? I don't want to open an RfC, but the constant reverting is ridiculous. WMrapids (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I support inclusion for the same reasons as @WMrapids. Providing support, whether that support be political, diplomatic or material, is definitely involvement. Reliable sources have sufficiently documented American actions in Venezuela as supportive of regime change. Skornezy (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Skornezy: You can take a look at Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin_America#RfC: Inclusion of Venezuela where the main discussion is occurring now. WMrapids (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids be careful with WP:CANVASSing. Please try to stay as transparent as possible with the user that you notify to participate.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Please strike this. This is obviously showing a user who was previously engaged where the discussion was now taking place. WMrapids (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Please take it as a friendly advice not as a warning. We all want a fair RfC.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion in either article, but if the RfC at the other article is for include, then and only then we should include a much more concise version here. I oppose partly because I don't think the sourcing is enough to say "involvement" and because if it is "involvement" there hasn't actually been a change of regime. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that US actions in Venezuela have been unsuccessful should exclude them from this article. Cuba and South Vietnam appear here, for example. Restricting this article to successful regime change action by the US would necessitate the creation of a separate article on unsuccessful regime change actions. This is separate from the issue of whether US actions fit into the description "Involvement in regime change". My view on that question is that the only plausible explanation for the multifarious actions taken by the US against Venezuela (personal and economic sanctions, "using all economic levers to force a solution", embrace of Juan Guaido, treatment of Alex Saab, theft of Citgo, transmitting propaganda into Venezuela by Voice of America ...) is that it was aiming to change the government. The US said this itself. Burrobert (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the main problem is not that it was "unsuccessful", yourself pointing out that there are such examples in the article already. It is because these actions pale in comparison to the funding or actual logistical support in armed conflicts, such as it happened in Cuba and South Vietnam.

As of the rest of the examples that you mention, as long as there aren't reliable sources saying they constitute regime change, they are a personal opinion that don't belong to the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: Despite it being clear that this inclusion has been hotly contested and the current discussion pointing out to the length of the article, you're insisting in adding this section. Please stop. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: It is appropriate for inclusion and most users are suggesting trimming sections, not outright removal of material. Make suggestions for trimming, but you need to stop editing against consensus; you were already sanctioned for these exact actions of removing Venezuela before. This is your final warning. WMrapids (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The most recent discussions have been about the article's scope, not whether if Venezuela should be included or not, so you should be the one that seeks consensus for the change. I have already fixed this and started the discussion below.

You seem to be the one dismissing not only the discussion from this discussion, but also the ones in all of the archives, but I shouldn't be surprised considering that it is already an habit of yours to rekindle old or settled discussions in articles. Consider yourself warned as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Scope of article

There was the start of a discussion on scope that the Latin America page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America#Scope,_terms,_definition On reflection, I think we need a new section here on this talk page (possibly an RfC) on the scope of "involvement in regime change", including the question of regime change that didn't happen, delinked from the Venezuela question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging users previously involved in discussions here and in other article @ReyHahn, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Gog the Mild, The Banner, NoonIcarus, The Gnome, Pincrete, Burrobert, and Skornezy:--WMrapids (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Since some are already suggesting that unsuccessful regime change should be excluded, it still should count as "involvement" if reliable sources say so. For instance, if someone was directly assisting with an attempted murder, it does not mean that they were not involved.--WMrapids (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The article has no short description so presumably this question has never arisen. The simplest solution is to include both successful and unsuccessful actions by the US and mention this in the lead and article description. Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, there is a reason why my answer above won't work. The current readable prose size is already 96 kB, which means it requires splitting. Due to the US' propensity for attacking countries, sometimes multiple times, the article is going to continue growing. Splitting the article according to successful/unsuccessful actions will reduce the size by hiving off actions against Cuba, Venezuela and South Vietnam. However, there may be a better (and possibly more natural) way of splitting the article. Burrobert (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert: We could divide the article by continents or regions since we already have United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, so this would follow WP:CONSISTENT. Then sections in this article could provide a short summary on involvement in each region with a "main article" tag below each section title. WMrapids (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could also make titles by century, such as United States involvement in regime change in the 19th century, United States involvement in regime change in the 20th century, etc.--WMrapids (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Either of these would be a better solution. One of the problems with dividing by success is that countries would sometimes be moving from one article to another after a change in government. Burrobert (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I like the regional split idea the best. As Burrobert says, the other one is ripe for confusion. Also, the regional split would allow us to more easily spin off sections into their own articles.

I especially like the idea to make a section explaining US motives in chronological order and then dividing the parent article into sections by region, with links to each child.

I'm not familiar with the relevant WP policy on this, should we call a vote or something?

It is also possible that some countries (Cuba, Vietnam, etc) already have enough content to merit their own separate article. CVDX (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RFCBEFORE; "calling for a vote" is premature until/unless all issues are fleshed out, to avoid a GIGO RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@CVDX: For Cuba and Vietnam, we have United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution as an example. WMrapids (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Split the article?

As Burrobert mentioned, the article may be growing too large. I’ve made the suggestion of splitting the article (if we agree on splitting) with two proposals; child articles based by regions or child articles based by time period. Which would you prefer? Any other opinions?--WMrapids (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The article now is structured by time period, so that would be the easiest split. Would need to hear more opinions about whether it's the best split. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it could be the best split because it is the easiest? It would also probably guarantee that each page has a similar size. Another alternative might be splitting based on a regional focus, as there is already one for Latin America, although I believe that can be a little messy.

Of course, there's always the option to remove original research in this article and to establish a definite bar, which would help to trim the article down. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's one problem with splitting; where arguably, this article should just be cut down, while splitting allows the POV to mushroom and be harder to maintain. Aside, I don't think by century, as suggested above, would be optimal, as that doesn't account for the natural breaks that occur more along the lines of, for example, pre- and post-WWII, or pre- and post-Cold War, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is an idea:

Parent article (United States involvement in regime change)

• A section can be created towards the beginning of the body that explains US motives chronologically (WWII, Cold War, etc.)
• The parent article can be divided into sections by region, with a linked placed to each regional child article
• Each section can provide a summary on each regional article

Child articles (United States involvement in regime change in region)

• Create child articles based by region from parent article
• Child articles can have sections based by time period, which aids with transfer.

@Burrobert, NoonIcarus, and SandyGeorgia: Let me know how you feel about this. WMrapids (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Premature and unnecessary until this article is cleaned up, and terms are defined. That is, splitting one POV mess of an article into multiple POV messes of articles creates ... well, obviously ... multiple messes. First get definitions and clean up this one, then decide whether a split is even necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I've already explained this above, but I disagree with divisions by region. There are more natural divisions by time (pre- World War II, post- World War II, Cold War, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: How do you recommend going forward with defining terms? WMrapids (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable suggestion @WMrapids:. Policy seems to prefer splitting of articles rather that removing content when an article becomes unwieldy. Burrobert (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The article could benefit from trimming of original research and coatrack information. Only after that, if the size remains an issue, a split wouuld be a good alternative. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, can you explain specifically what information/sections you consider to be examples of WP:COATRACK? CVDX (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@CVDX and NoonIcarus: I would also like an explanation since NoonIcarus makes WP:COATRACK claims frequently. WMrapids (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@CVDX: Hi. My apologies, I've forgotten to reply. Previous content has included policies enacted after the regime change. One of the current examples in the 1976: Argentina is, for instance, According to Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón, Kissinger was a witness to the regime's crimes against humanity., among others. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Scope, continued

@Cambalachero, Ghazaalch, Mhorg, Lone Internaut, Entropyandvodka, TheTimesAreAChanging, Skornezy, Monochromemelo1, Jtbobwaysf, Darouet, C.J. Griffin, Cononsense, and Joaquinazo: Revisiting this article and inviting previously involved users who have not participated in this topic.

We need help defining the scope of the article, so here are some questions that should be answered:

• Should the threshold of inclusion be multiple reliable sources explicitly describing an involvement in "regime change"?
• Should the article be split?
• Later, if we agree on a split, how should the article be split?

I will organize the questions in subsections below. All thoughts and opinions are helpful, so don't be shy!--WMrapids (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging previous participants: @ReyHahn, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Gog the Mild, The Banner, The Gnome, Pincrete, and Burrobert:, given the renewal of the questions at hand. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Threshold of inclusion

Should the threshold of inclusion be reliable sources describing events–including soft power, soft coup and hard power action–as involvement in "regime change" (including common sense synonymous descriptions such as "change in government", "coup", "ousting", etc.)?--WMrapids (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, we should be flexible in terms used, we dont have to use the term "regime change". The US govt involvement in coups, power changes, etc is all the same thing from an encyclopedic perspective. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• No We've already have faced important WP:OR issues in the past (suffice to just take a look at the archives discussions), and the article is already long as it currently is.--NoonIcarus (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Clarification that I don't oppose synonymous being accepted for inclusion, but rather cases that involve soft power and that are otherwise a stretch. As other have mentioned, common sense is the best option here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes: If we have a reliable source that is able to verify the United States being involved in a regime change event, (that is, attempting "the partly forcible or coercive replacement of one government regime with another" that "can also be imposed on a country by foreign actors through invasion, overt or covert interventions, or coercive diplomacy") then such an event may be included in this article as it is not original research.--WMrapids (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, we should include all types of influence towards other countries. Mhorg (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  "all types of influence" vastly inflates the scope. That pretty much defines "diplomacy" rather than "involvement in regime change". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes per the reasons stated above, and some common sense with regards to the subject. Many sources in Western media use euphemisms when discussing regime change and US foreign policy more broadly. entropyandvodka | talk 17:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes were this is reliable sourcing of direct US involvement. I'd note that coercive diplomacy involves the threat or actual use of force, not just forceful diplomacy. Academic sourcing should be available for events for most of these events. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  ActivelyDisinterest re your comment on "coercive diplomacy" (which I agree would be a form of involvement in regime change), are you saying that "forceful diplomacy" would be outside the scope of the article? And, if so, where would class "soft power" in that? Thanks. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Τhe definition of regime change, for the purpose of this article, as given with robust support in Wikipedia is quite adequate. Let's revisit it, in full:

Regime change is the partly forcible or coercive replacement of one government regime with another. Regime change may replace all or part of the state's most critical leadership system, administrative apparatus, or bureaucracy. Regime change may occur through domestic processes, such as revolution, coup, or reconstruction of government following state failure or civil war. It can also be imposed on a country by foreign actors through invasion, overt or covert interventions, or coercive diplomacy. Regime change may entail the construction of new institutions, the restoration of old institutions, and the promotion of new ideologies.

Therefore, Yes, consider the threshold already raised. -The Gnome (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That "Yes" is not what I think the other "yes" meant. That is a criteria, contrary to the other possibility of adding information as soon as an article says "this is US involvement".--ReyHahn (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So, The_Gnome, yes to "invasion, overt or covert interventions, or coercive diplomacy" being synonyms for regime change, per the WP article, but what about to including soft power and soft coup as well, per the nomination above? Likewise, yes to new institutions and the restoration of old institutions as synonyms for regime change, per our article, but what about "change in government" per the nomination? (My sense is that you want to keep a raised threshold, whereas this proposal lowers the threshold.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• No a proper criteria would be better. Just because a sources says it so is not enough, involvement is a loose term it can go from sending troops to talking bad about the government. Also a criteria of notability could help keeping this page concise, this is not a MOS:LIST.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Yes We need multiple (e.g. at least two) reliable sources, and something like "regime change," or "interference" with the end result being a regime change, or "coup," etc. are necessary. If you consider the Lumumba case for a moment, that involved significant contacts with opposition groups, and plots to kill Lumumba. A source could describe US involvement in the Congo without using terms like "coup" or "regime change" and it would still be describing US involvement in regime change. -Darouet (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but not as worded currently in RfC. There's a lot going on in the proposal (reliable sources describing events–including soft power, soft coup and hard power action–as involvement in "regime change" (including common sense synonymous descriptions such as "change in government", "coup", "ousting", etc.)), which needs disentangling.

(a) reliable sources - non-controversial, but I note the plural, implying more than one. I guess if it's a straightforward case we don't need to seek out extra references and one would be fine, whereas if it's contested we would want a higher standard - e.g. a preponderance of reliable sources describe it in this way.

(b) coup (including soft coup if used literally), hard power, ousting, invasion, unseating, installation and similar terms are all obviously usable synonyms for regime change. However, soft power often isn't, and "change of government" certainly isn't. There was a change of government in the US in 2009, but it wasn't a change of regime. A change of government that maintains the same political system is not regime change. So we need to not be too expansive with synonyms.

(c) what's missing here is any stipulation around US "involvement". To me, it needs to be significant involvement to be notable enough for inclusion. A USAID grant to a civil society group or a US diplomat meeting with a coup plotter once would not merit inclusion here even if RSs used a synonym for regime change (or the term itself). This is where we need to be cautious about "soft power", for example. (d) personally, I think we need to consider stipulating whether or not regime change actually occurs or if it is an unrealised possibility in a particular instance, but I see there is a new talk thread below on that question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

What counts as "involvement"?

I read the above discussion as very rapidly reaching strong consensus that we can use the WP article on regime change to enable us to use clear synonyms for regime change, such as coup (although I personally dissent in prefering the WP article wording to the suggestion above in that I would not include (constitutional) "change of government" as a synonym for regime change unless there was also a fundamental change in institutions). However, there seems to be less consensus so far on what counts as "involvement" and not many editors have commented on this. There is clearly agreement that military intervention (or threat thereof) or coercive diplomacy count. But what about other forms of diplomacy for example? Or funding non-violent opposition groups or independent media? Or making a speech that explicitly (or just appears to) support for a change of government? How significant does the involvement have to be? I think we need some agreement on this. I'd suggest the following: Instances should be included where there was significant US involvement such as military intervention, threat of intervention, use of coercive diplomacy, or a significant covert operation. I know that begs the question of what is "significant" but I don't have a better idea. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we split?

Should the article be split?--WMrapids (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I dont think we should split, unless WP:TOOLARGE has been triggered. It is better as one article. The encyclopedic part of the article is the many instances of similar actions by the US govt, so if we split it, it tends to fork the story. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• No per the subsections above. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• No, I don't think this is the case at the moment. Mhorg (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• No unless we hit a size limit. If we do break up the article, we should create a list article, if there isn't one already, such that anyone interested in the topic can easily see a list of entities in which the United States has engaged in regime change. entropyandvodka | talk 17:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Possibly if more content is added, but not required at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Nope. Reasonable objections have been raised as to the size of the article. Well, in a semi-whimsical tone, I'll remark that another party and not Wikipedia editors is responsible for the very large size of a text about United States involvement in regime change. But, seriously, this is one classic case where we need both a shorter text about each item of US involvement and a pointer to the main article. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  @The Gnome Agreed, the article is very unwieldy as is. Also, I think the split should be geographical (causes less problems with overlap than by time period).

  Countries with more content could be the first to be spun off into separate articles -- Vietnam, Hawaii, Cuba, etc CVDX (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, CVDX. We agree that the size is a bit big. We do not agree about splitting it. I must make this clear. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• No I hope we can trimm it down per suggestion above. The article is definetely WP:TOOLARGE. If it is not possible to trim, a conversation into what could be split would be nice, if there is not one already.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• "[A] conversation into what could be split would be nice": Or, better yet, trimmed. -The Gnome (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Don't Split but Trim is fine. As @The Gnome hilariously notes above, the article's large size results not from the incompetence of Wiki editors but from the United States' prodigious foreign policy experiments intended to make this page longer. Someone should talk to them about that. In the mean time trimming with links to main articles is a great idea. -Darouet (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Trim: I think it works better as a single article. I've been looking through and most entries have one para, and that's fine, but some could be tightened a bit. More significant entries (e.g. 1945 Korea) can go to a couple of paras, and that's fine. But there are some entries that are just far too long: 1952 Iran, 1959 Iraq, 1963 Iraq, 1970s Cambodia. A couple of long entries cover a very long period with multiple attempts at regime change (!975+ Angola, 1979+ Afghanistan, 2001+ Afghanistan) so they might need attention (should they be split into smaller entries? do they have unnecesary words in them) but not cut dramatically. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• No: and per Jtbobwaysf. This shows the consistent, repetitive behavior of the U.S. It's the kind of thing Noam Chomsky has talked about at length. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Must regime change be successful for inclusion?

@Cambalachero, Ghazaalch, Mhorg, Lone Internaut, Entropyandvodka, TheTimesAreAChanging, Skornezy, Monochromemelo1, Jtbobwaysf, Darouet, C.J. Griffin, Cononsense, Joaquinazo, ReyHahn, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Gog the Mild, The Banner, The Gnome, Pincrete, and Burrobert:

Must regime change be successful for inclusion or is "involvement" in attempting/promoting regime change sufficient?--WMrapids (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• No. Attempting/promoting is sufficient. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. Attempting/promoting is sufficient just as Ghazaalch stated. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. Agree with Ghazaalch and Jtbobwaysf above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. An article about successful US regime-change operations is possible but, as mentioned in previous discussions, this could lead to problems. The simplest solution is to include all US regime-change operations within one article (at least until size becomes an issue). Burrobert (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• No, BUT a better question should be whether failed involvement or attempts should be included in the article at all. With concerns about size and proposals for trimming, this seems to be grasping at straws at best. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  NoonIcarus, can you clarify: what is the difference between only including successful efforts and excluding unsuccessful efforts? Your arguments seem to imply you think that Yes only successful efforts should be included? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi! I'm very sorry, I was hoping to respond earlier. In principle yes, that's what I thought when I left my comment, although reading through the article I noticed that the Bay of Pigs Invasion is included, which I think is a very good example of unsuccessful. I think it would be better to focus in the scope, in that case, and consider unsuccessful attempts only if, for instance, they're armed invasions. Hope this helps to clarify. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• No. Attempting/promoting is sufficient just as Ghazaalch and others have said. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, it would be easier to verify and have more concise criteria (but not enough). Also it would help with the size.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. The main criterion here, too, is the level of notability. And that, as can trivially be shown, is not dependent on the success of an attempt at regime change. It can be reasonably presumed that the level of notability such an attempt, if unsuccessful, attracts correlates well with the significance and overall impact the attempt has, even if unsuccessful. Examples of failed attempts that attracted world-wide attention abound. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• No but I agree with The Gnome on notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• In general yes. I think the presumption should be that regime change should actually happen for it to count as regime change, and therefore where regime change didn't happen we wouldn't normally include it, otherwise the scope is potentially endless. However, there are a few more noteworthy incidents (significant upheavals such as major failed coups or failed revolutions) where, if the US role was significant, common sense would suggest inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: Just looking through the threads above and noted that Darouet's !vote on inclusion criteria is also relevant here: We need multiple (e.g. at least two) reliable sources, and something like "regime change," or "interference" with the end result being a regime change, or "coup," etc. are necessary BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• No but with notability as the guiding criteria. US efforts at regime change in Cuba and Venezuela come to mind.entropyandvodka | talk 17:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. A quick google search, even Cato Institute, not exactly non-neutral, would answer the same. [4]. From my studies in International Relations and Noam Chomsky it has long been my understanding that any interference towards keeping or changing the government (especially interfering with a democratic election or other process) of other countries is the subject matter that is meant when people mention 'regime change'. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the "2019–2022: Venezuela" section be included?

Considering the previous discussions above, should the recently added "2019–2022: Venezuela" section be included in the article? (diff) Restarting pings: @Cambalachero, Ghazaalch, Mhorg, Lone Internaut, Entropyandvodka, TheTimesAreAChanging, Skornezy, Monochromemelo1, Jtbobwaysf, Darouet, C.J. Griffin, Cononsense, Joaquinazo, ReyHahn, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Gog the Mild, The Banner, The Gnome, Pincrete, Burrobert, and WMrapids:— Preceding unsigned comment added by NoonIcarus (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think we need to leave this here as a placeholder and return to it once the previous RfCs are resolved. Once we answer the above questions, it will be easier to see if Venezuela fits the new consensus. Meanwhile, it should be removed per WP:ONUS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Roger. I have removed it for the time being. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Per the snowball clause, it seemed pretty clear that consensus agreed on soft to hard power along with unsuccessful regime change attempts to be included in the article; all arguments that have been used in the past to prevent inclusion of the Venezuela section. With these arguments dashed, it was obvious that Venezuela should be included in this article. All of this was done to avoid an unnecessary RfC specifically on another Venezuelan topic, yet as what frequently happens with Venezuelan topics, it has again turned to a dispute.

So, should we open a formal request for comment? Everything else appears resolved except for the placement of the section on Venezuela. WMrapids (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

SNOW applies here to the splitting question for sure. It might also apply to the question of unsuccessful regime change. But it does not apply to the threshold question, where there seems to be a range of opinions. I think that needs to play out more. Might be worth listing at relevant WP project pages. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Trimming

Due to the size concerns expressed at #Should we split?, I have trimmed several sections, including the following:

• 1952: Guatemala (merging with 1954)
• 1959: Iraq
• 1959–1962: Cuba
• 1963: Iraq
• 1965–1967: Indonesia
• 1970–1973: Cambodia
• 1974: Ethiopia
• 1975–1991: Angola
• 1990–1991: Soviet Union
• 1991: Iraq

I have also removed the section about "1949 Syria" because, from what I've seen, this has been highly contested (including at Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 1#March 1949 Syrian coup d'état) and even the content itself conceded that there was no consensus among scholars about said involvement.

The article was reduced to 86 kB of readable prose, but these changes are without prejudice of challenge, and anyone is free to contest any or several of these adjustments. Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)