Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

Trimming

Due to the size concerns expressed at #Should we split?, I have trimmed several sections ([1]), 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)

Article back at readable prose size of 98 kB after revert by David Tornheim([2]). It would be good if he could explain the reasons, since they have join this last discussion just today. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Please work on one section at a time, so we can see what is changed. Doing such a large change makes it hard to work with. You gave no documentation to what exactly you were removing or why you thought it was unnecessary. Please slow down. I would like to be able to look at the before and after of a section.--David Tornheim (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Take as much time as you like, but calling the edit "fast" is far-fetched: it's been way over a week since the last comments, and as Bobfrombrockley comments below, some of the trimmed sections were already noted for their length.

The article is too long per WP:SIZE and the output above shows a clear agreement to shorten the article, meaning that if you can provide any feedback on which information can be removed it would be helpful. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just repasting my earlier comment on what should be trimmed, highlighting the three that NoonIcarus tried to trim: 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 unnecessary words in them?) but not cut dramatically. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's better to make changes one by one, but the diff isn't hard to digest: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change&diff=1204586798&oldid=1202325885 And I don't think "slow down" is really applicable here, as there is clear consensus above for trimming, as well as a long history on this page of support for a trim. I'm going to revert to CJGriffin's version and if there are problems with the form the trim took make those specific edits and explain why. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

An overview of my rational to trim the content is the following:

• Content or section that had already been contested in this talk page.
• Background or aftermaths unrelated to the regime change per se.
• Discussions and disagreements between experts or scholars whether there was involvement or not. At times this is already summarized neatly just before with something similar to "it's complicated" or "experts don't agree".
• Statements that repeat the information in the section or really don't contribute much to the content overall.

Leaving the change here as reference:[3] --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus, David Tornheim, and Bobfrombrockley: I reverted the edit for now until we can discuss this further. I agree that it would be more appropriate reviewing these events by section so we can achieve a consensus on what is appropriate for inclusion. Targeted removals of some passages such as "economic warfare" in the Cuba section, "the U.S.-supported campaign of political repression and state terrorism by South American right-wing dictators" in the Operation Condor section along with information about hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths raises some questions as well.--WMrapids (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want us to discuss the edits one by one you need to tell us what the issues are a bit more comprehensively. I don’t see a problem with any of the edits and we have strong consensus for trimming. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"economic warfare" is SYNTH as not in source. If a reliable secondary source calls it this can include. Have removed pending such a source. If replaced, needs better wording to avoid "included---including" clunky formulation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Article back at readable prose size of 98 kB. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I support most of these edits, as it keeps it readable and encyclopedic. I am unsure about these:

• removal of Nixon quote that gives substance to description of US involvement
• removal of affiliation of outgoing head of state. I think brief characterisation of pre- and post-change regime is helpful context.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's alright, both changes have been reverted now. Any one of these trims can be disputed if considered better. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I also removed one of the sections from the original trim, "1949: Syria" ([4]). Scholars don't agree if there was involvement at all and it has been disputed several times. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)