Talk:Covert United States foreign regime change actions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Covert United States foreign regime change actions redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

redirect to History of the CIA, 13 December 2015, see discussion.
no consensus, 3 Jan. 2007, see discussion.

Cold War

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War

Military history: Intelligence / North America / United States

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations

Politics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Horrible article

@Volunteer Marek:

US government aid to Poland was done primarily openly through the NED. US civil society through the AFL-CIO funded Solidarnosc with 300 thousand USD. These sources were acknowledged as more effective than the CIA by e.g. Domber's thesis (miscited grossy here) and book, and I believe Bernstein, also miscited here.

Domber, Gregory F. (2014). Empowering Revolution: America, Poland, and the End of the Cold War. The New Cold War History. University of North Carolina Press books. ISBN 1469618516, 9781469618517. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Where to begin with this article? Perhaps it should just be deleted as obviously violating WP:NPOV and as misrepresenting sources.

Dame Etna (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could be the best way forward. bobrayner (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobrayner, Dame Etna, and Volunteer Marek: The topic of this article is clearly notable, but it might require extensive re-writing. Are there any critera for deletion that could be applied to this article? Jarble (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV is a core policy; content that fails WP:NPOV should be removed. bobrayner (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by going over the Venezuelan section and possibly rewriting it. Take a look at this and make some comparisons. From what the title of this article says, it sounds like each one of these sections about regime changes should be provided as factual. If that is the case, then only regime changes that we are all 100% positive of happening due to US covert operations should be included. If that is not the case, then the title of the article should be changed to "Allegations of covert United States foreign regime change actions", or something similar.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should go down the "alleged" route, because a) that would make the size unmanageable, and b) there are enough proven instances to warrant an article. However, I think there is some misunderstanding over the title of the article. I read "covert regime change action" as a "covert action that was meant to topple a government." In many cases the actions succeeded (Guatemala, Iran, Chile) and in others they failed (Cuba, Nicaragua). The failure should not eliminate them from this article, because conceptually they belong here. Rewriting is certainly necessary; some sections are given far too much weight, others too little, not to mention plenty of poor writing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not making the article strictly "alleged actions", I just forgot to finish what I was saying. Failure doesn't exclude the actions from the list, an action is an action. Also, it shouldn't be hard to manage an article involving allegations as long as it was presented neutrally and had reliable sources. We can possibly split up articles with an alleged actions article and then one with confirmed actions. There are too many people that can just say that the US and CIA are imperialists and attempted to commit a coup 42 times in the past week. If we do it this way people can separate fringe theories from actual occurrences. If one simply glances at the article they could think the United States committed dozens of regime change actions (not saying they did or didn't) when they may not have done so. For some of these alleged actions they cannot be completely confirmed except through possible fringe theory sources. For instance there is one article that shows the most accepted version of the September 11 attacks, and then there is a separate article for 9/11 conspiracy theories. It should not take much effort to copy and paste information in separate articles if we do go down this path as well.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a trend for some of these actions is against communist governments. While also recognizing what was said by the Dalai Lama about such actions, I think this should be mentioned in the lede.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might help us a lot. Here is a list provided by the United States government showing the "Chronological list of some covert operations supported or initiated by the U.S. since late 1940s". It looks like most of it is anti-communist operations which reinforces my earlier statements that such anti-Communist actions should be noted in the lede.--ZiaLater (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what about 2009 honduras coup?

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office. “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico,” Clinton writes. “We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by William M.hijo (talk • contribs) 23:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems interesting but I would find a better source. Mark Weisbrot is a bit of a controversial figure when it comes to defending the left (such as Venezuela). Plus opinion pieces are not a great way to start and article.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OR in the lede

In addition to all the other problems with this article (which pretty much should be deleted) there's unsourced OR in the lede [1]. Please don't restore it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and per BRD I don't believe you were in the right reverting me. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, you were bold in removing the content and Gob Lofa reverted you, so you must discuss it, not continue to push it. Whilst I would agree that it needs sourcing, the whole article is on about what you are removing. Instead you should make use of templates, especially inline ones such as ^{[according to whom?]} etc. so that someone with a source can source it, and if they don't after a period of time—say a month or few, depending how often the page is viewed—then you may be able to remove it. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is NOT about what I am removing. Nowhere in the article does it say, nor is it sourced, that "regime change" is the same as "overthrow of foreign government" (and a moment's reflection is sufficient to realize that that's because they're not). BRD is all nice and shit, but unsourced material needs to be removed, especially if it's POV and in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2]. Really, "democracynow" is NOT a reliable source for this claim. AND, again, the lede is suppose to summarize the article. This editorializing does NOT summarize anything in the article. It's just somebody's random opinion thrown in for no good reason except POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. So what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So unless you convince me, how are you going to get consensus for your boldness? By the way, like Mabuska said, you're still in violation of BRD. Will you revert yourself? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That's not how it works. You can't just write "I disagree" and then demand that I "convince you".

And BRD 1) is an essay not a policy, 2) I am not "in violation" of it, and 3) it's usually used to WP:GAME the system and win edit wars.

WP:OR is OR. It gets removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting take on things. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. So what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an essay but it is one that is very commonly used if a dispute does appear. In essence the article is reverted to the version of the article before the contentious edit was made, it has nothing to do with gaming. The editor who made the contentious edit then goes to talk to discuss it and try to get a consensus for it. If they can't or a compromise cannot be found then the edit does not occur.

If there is a source problem then it needs discussed to see if it is reliable and if that can't be resolved then their is always the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can go and have others decide if it is or isn't.

If you wish you can open a Request for Comment so other editors can join this discussion and maybe help resolve it.

Obviously as you and Gob Lofa disagree with each other and I lean towards agreeing with Gob Lofa depending on the reliability of the sources involved, so exploring those two options may be worthwhile Volunteer Marek. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article can't really end well

Covert regime change action by necessity are covert, there are many edge cases which means this article is consistently walking the line between incompleteness and slander. Perhaps what we need is a certain threshold of reliability to fall back on, mutually agreed upon, or possibly to scrap the article altogether?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana??

Where is Ghana 1966?? I am not well aware about the topic and mechanism and projects involved, but I think, this is clearly obvious and it is pretty alarming, this one is missing there. Is someone capable of adding the info? --94.112.30.129 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the US was involved with it, is still disputed, maybe it'd be appropriate to add a section similar to the Venezuela one with contrasting claims. - SantiLak (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be good, but i am not capable. I can say about the event like four or five sentences and without references (don´t have enough time to search more info for quite a long time). However i think it is kinda important part of cold war struggle for Africa and don´t like it to be missed.--94.112.30.129 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about Libya 2011?

Doesn't Libyan "Regime Change" supported by US? It also threw a "No Fly Zone" over Libya to ensure that Gaddhafi could not use airforce against the rebels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.123.196 (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a covert regime change, they didn't make a no-fly zone and were like "shhhhh it's not a no fly zone, it's a secret." They affected regime change yes, they didn't cause it also. - SantiLak (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]