Revision as of 08:41, 5 December 2014 editVanamonde93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators80,460 edits →Removing a whole bunch of OR, off topic, and other crap.: looked over the changes, reinstated some.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:08, 21 January 2015 edit undoStaberinde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,568 edits →Inclusion criteria: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
] (]) 08:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | ] (]) 08:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
== Inclusion criteria == | |||
Some people seem to have issues with basic English language so I will try to make it as clear as possible. Article is titled '''"Covert United States foreign regime change actions"''' So what would something require for inclusion? Really simple:<br> | |||
1. regime change action<br> | |||
2. by United States<br> | |||
3. that is covert operation<br> | |||
Farewell Dossier? No regime change action, just ordinary Cold war espionage and counter-espionage. Iraq 2002-2003? ] was about as overt invasion as it can get, every war includes covert operations, should we add covert operations and espionage against Axis powers here? Somalia 2006? Internationally UN recognized government was called ] while ] was rebel group. Supporting legal recognized government against rebels is exactly opposite to "regime change action".--] (]) 17:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:08, 21 January 2015
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers
Links from this article with broken #section links :
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 Jan. 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Archives | ||||
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Evidence of U.S. involvement?
Upon examination of the sources present, it appears to me that the only people alleging U.S. involvement are members of the Venezuelan government or ardent conspiracy theorists. I'm currently working on a rewrite of the main article, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Covert United States foreign regime change actions should only include verifiable actions, not allegations of U.S. involvement—especially when the allegations come from state-run propaganda sources that regularly scapegoat the U.S.
I've included the text I removed from the mainspace below:
Venezuela 2002
Main article: 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attemptIn 2002, Washington is claimed to have approved and supported a coup against the Venezuelan government. Senior officials, including Special Envoy to Latin America Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra figure and George W. Bush "democracy 'czar'" Elliott Abrams, were allegedly part of the plot. Top coup plotters, including Pedro Carmona, the man installed during the coup as the new president, began visits to the White House months before the coup and continued until weeks before the putsch. The plotters were received at the White House by the man President George W. Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Special Envoy Otto Reich. It has been claimed by Venezuelan news sources that Reich was the U.S. mastermind of the coup.
Former U.S. Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen told the British newspaper The Guardian that American military attachés had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to explore the possibility of a coup. "I first heard of Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers going down there last June to set the ground", Mr. Madsen reported, adding: "Some of our counter-narcotics agents were also involved." He claims the U.S. Navy assisted with signals intelligence as the coup played out and helped by jamming communications for the Venezuelan military, focusing on jamming communications to and from the diplomatic missions in Caracas. The U.S. embassy dismissed the allegations as "ridiculous".
Bush Administration officials and anonymous sources acknowledged meeting with some of the planners of the coup in the several weeks prior to April 11, but have strongly denied encouraging the coup itself, saying that they insisted on constitutional means. Because of allegations, Sen. Christopher Dodd requested a review of U.S. activities leading up to and during the coup attempt. A U.S. State Department Office of Inspector General report found no "wrongdoing" by U.S. officials either in the State Department or in the U.S. Embassy.
FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Though I haven't read that one, the sourced allegations of Madsen are certainly worth including. I did find this:
officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it,
- So here the sources are not just the Venezuelan government (or it's "propaganda sources" which I find interesting you find have "scapegoated" Washington but not the reverse, not Washington scapegoating the Venezuelan government as a dictatorship no matter how many elections that outside observers verified, were won. It's not like Chavez's brother was the governor of a state and used that control to get Chavez in power (think Florida, 2000...had a Chavez brother done that, imagine the screams of a totalitarian leftist banaba republic we would have heard..!)
- Lastly uncontroversially, the U.S. supported the coup when it was in progress, and openly admits it: uncontroversially, it immediately recognized the coup as a legitimate government. Not only did other countries not immediately do it, no other OAS state at all, other than the U.S., recognized it, and in the immediate aftermath of a coup in the first few days, that makes a huge difference to how likely it is to succeed.
- Military power matters, people's demonstrations matter, but also, international recognition (or lack thereof) matters quite a lot. So this certainly counts as supporting the coup, not just "after the fact" - a year later would have been "after the fact", maybe a month later one could argue was "not supporting the coup but only after the fact" but in the immediate hours and days when everything is fluid, to declare support for the "legitimacy" of the coup government as no other OAS government did, and as others condemned, that is supporting the coup before it is written in stone (ultimately, it never did get 'written in stone' and was undone). If the Soviet Union or today's Russia or China had done the same, this alone would be something we would (reasonably) consider "support for the coup". And that is as I said, not even contested by anyone - it was a public statement by the U.S. government that was in countless press articles - support for the coup plotters while things were still fluid in those first critical hours. See also Guardian article. Hopefully this can be updated both here, and on the separate article on the 2002 coup attempt, if someone has time to incorporate these two with citations. Harel (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- And equally so, obviously, if a Chinese or Russian "Former Navy intelligence officer" was quoted in the Guardian or similar newspaper as asserting that Russia or China was involved in supporting coup plotters, jamming communications etc, that would be something we would consider (again, rightly) as "this merits inclusion in the article" on Chinese or Russian covert actions etc (along with, yes, including the official Russian or Chinese authorities saying the allegation is "ridiculous" also included, for balance, of course..) Harel (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- To original subject: sorry to inform you, but Jimmy Carter is not an "ardent conspiracy theorist" or "propaganda source"... he is in fact a notable source, like several of the others who are referenced in this article as well as the one on the coup itself. Try again. 71.167.107.243 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The US government recognized the new government, true, but the evidence for its direct involvement in the coup itself is all either circumstantial or by third hand sources. "A former Navy intelligence officer says xyz" is not hard evidence.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Map
I've created a map of the world indicating all US regime change actions since 1950. Is it worth including in the article? 0x60 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- A map would be nice, but this one doesn't seem to be correct. For example, it marks Iran, Pakistan and all former Yugoslav states (except Kosovo) as invasions. Chrisahn (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing the map. I guess, I am wrong on Iran and Yugoslav states, will correct it. But while I understand that drone attacks in Packistan might not qualify as "invation", I think it's important to mark that on the map. Should I create a separate category for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0x60 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- This kind of synthesis is beyond the scope of the article (although the article itself is arguably synthesis as well).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Added a new map, which features only countries mentioned in the article 0x60 (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the map. The inclusion of Ukraine and Israel is not justifiable. The caption "Countries where regime change has been engineered by the United States since 1950" is also unacceptable. The United States did not "engineer" regime change in, say, Poland, for example - it supported Solidarity but it did not engineer anything. Other cases involve the US providing tacit support for a coup - this is not the same as engineering.GabrielF (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Added a new map, which features only countries mentioned in the article 0x60 (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- This kind of synthesis is beyond the scope of the article (although the article itself is arguably synthesis as well).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing the map. I guess, I am wrong on Iran and Yugoslav states, will correct it. But while I understand that drone attacks in Packistan might not qualify as "invation", I think it's important to mark that on the map. Should I create a separate category for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0x60 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
What about Germany, Italy and Japan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.11.197 (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Missing sections
The article is missing sections on Panama (see invasion of Panama) and Haiti in the 1990s (Aristide was overthrown twice). Poyani (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
What about Eden to Macmillan transition in the UK in 1957? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.226 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Map issues
For what reason are Israel, Poland and Ukraine on the map? Also, for what reason is Poland on the article? Publically expressing diplomatic support for a particular party in support of freedom generally isn't 'covert' or 'forced regime change'. Map will be removed till fixed and Poland till justified if it's not replied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.106.29 (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I removed the map (for the second time). GabrielF (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Removing a whole bunch of OR, off topic, and other crap.
The name of the article is "Covert United States foreign regime change actions". Instead the article just goes on and on describing ... the fact that US has a foreign policy. There was a whole bunch of original research, bad sourcing (dead links or sources which do not support the text) and off topic text (which has nothing to do with either regime change and/or nothing to do with any "covert" action). I removed this.
The fact that there may be sources is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion. Another obvious necessary condition is that the text actually be about what the article title says it is about. This wasn't the case with a good chunk of this article. Volunteer Marek 05:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- That was not my point; my point is that even if your arguments are valid, deleting 36kb of text essentially at one go makes it really difficult to verify what you are saying, and so I would have appreciated you discussing it first, and taking it step by step. I agree (obviously) that relevance is necessary, but relevance is a debatable thing on many an occasion, while a lack of sources is not; blanking unsourced text, and blanking irrelevant text, are very different ball games. For instance, you deleted a bunch of "see also" entries, with the reason "prune SA farm," with no rationale as to why you kept the ones you did. In any case, since you seemed inclined to be bullish about this, I will go over the changes individually. I don't doubt that you are right for the large part; I do expect us to disagree on some things. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Just being WP:BOLD. Volunteer Marek 14:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the cleanup done by Volunteer Marek except for few places where I may like to discuss... but the bigger concern comes because of the title of the article having "Covert actions" for "foreign regime change"... if we stick to the letter of it; there is little chance of putting back any of the content which was (duly) removed. --AmritasyaPutra 08:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- AP, you frequently accuse me of stalking, and then turn up here to disagree with me on a page you have never edited, in a topic area that haven't been involved with? The hypocrisy is just amazing! VM, I'll get back to you in a short while, busy over the next two days. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- ??? Any response to the comment-on-content above? --AmritasyaPutra 00:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is difficult to take those seriously, because you clearly came here after a glance at my contributions this morning, but for what it's worth look at my reply to Marek. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see. No response to my comment. --AmritasyaPutra 04:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Marek, if you delete Angola because Reagan announced it on the radio, why don't you delete Afghanistan, when Reagan invited mujahideen to the White House? All of the Reagan Doctrine stuff from Nicaragua to Poland and Afghanistan to Cambodia was well-known at the time. Likewise, none of our recent actions in Libya or Syria were covert. Moreover, everything the CIA does is overseen by both the executive and legislative branches, and even the coups in Iran and Guatemala were known to have been CIA operations by the contemporary press, with barely a fig leaf of plausible deniability. If the point of this article is that these were all secret CIA operations ignorant Americans have never heard of before, then the whole thing could and probably should be deleted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nicaragua actually fits the scope of this article. The other stuff doesn't. I do think that this article might be deletion worthy. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- It would seem that the "covert" nature of the operations here is in question; at the same time, there is more than enough material here for a more specific article than the US foreign policy one. What would you suggest to resolve this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nicaragua actually fits the scope of this article. The other stuff doesn't. I do think that this article might be deletion worthy. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Marek, if you delete Angola because Reagan announced it on the radio, why don't you delete Afghanistan, when Reagan invited mujahideen to the White House? All of the Reagan Doctrine stuff from Nicaragua to Poland and Afghanistan to Cambodia was well-known at the time. Likewise, none of our recent actions in Libya or Syria were covert. Moreover, everything the CIA does is overseen by both the executive and legislative branches, and even the coups in Iran and Guatemala were known to have been CIA operations by the contemporary press, with barely a fig leaf of plausible deniability. If the point of this article is that these were all secret CIA operations ignorant Americans have never heard of before, then the whole thing could and probably should be deleted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see. No response to my comment. --AmritasyaPutra 04:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is difficult to take those seriously, because you clearly came here after a glance at my contributions this morning, but for what it's worth look at my reply to Marek. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- ??? Any response to the comment-on-content above? --AmritasyaPutra 00:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- AP, you frequently accuse me of stalking, and then turn up here to disagree with me on a page you have never edited, in a topic area that haven't been involved with? The hypocrisy is just amazing! VM, I'll get back to you in a short while, busy over the next two days. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why section on Poland was removed. It is well known fact that CIA funded covertly Solidarity seeking to overthrow Polish government at the time and can be sourced by mainstream sources, even from USA itself.In fact I even recall a CIA official stating such in BBC documentary.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- This page is synthesis and a POV fork. All of the same material can be found in more specific articles. If we are merely trimming the article and not deleting it outright, deciding what to trim could indeed be construed as rather arbitrary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- The section on Poland is irrelevant as it was neither covert nor a regime change. The trims are not arbitrary. We remove the stuff that 1) does not fit with the scope of the article (in other words, just because US has *a* foreign policy, does not make something a covert regime change) and 2) stuff that's not based on reliable sources. Deleting this article would probably be preferable. I see there was an AfD there once but it had enough votes for "Keep but improve" that it was kept. This improvement did not take place. Maybe it's time to go back to AfD. Volunteer Marek 00:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- "The section on Poland is irrelevant as it was neither covert nor a regime change", scholarly books on the subject and articles by Pulitzer Prize journalist named it as covert and regime change. As do intelligence officials in USA. Besides your own very emotional opinion you brought no arguments towards your wholesale blanking of reliable sources.Anyway there are dozens of reliable sources naming actions in Poland by CIA as covert, including US intelligence representatives.It's really not something you can argue against VM, it's just a well established information on international history, which nobody disputes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Refrain from making personal attacks along the lines of "your own very emotional opinion". And don't revert blindly. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I go the impression that naming Springer publication and Pulitzer Prize winner publication as "junk" and deleting almost whole article is a very emotional response.Perhaps in the future instead of engaging in mass blanking of sourced articles you should start discussions on talk pages first, using rational arguments instead of phrases like "junk". It would certainly improve the tone of discussion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Except I never named those publications "junk". Refrain from making false accusations. Deleting junk (other junk, which this article was full of) from a crappy article is not a "very emotional response". Drop the patronizing rhetoric and insulting insinuations.
- Looking at the Daugherty source, it does look like Poland would qualify. Now, if you could just add text which accurately reflects what the source says. And if you could stop trying to use additions of other information to perform and mask multiple blind reverts. Volunteer Marek 01:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- "The section on Poland is irrelevant as it was neither covert nor a regime change", scholarly books on the subject and articles by Pulitzer Prize journalist named it as covert and regime change. As do intelligence officials in USA. Besides your own very emotional opinion you brought no arguments towards your wholesale blanking of reliable sources.Anyway there are dozens of reliable sources naming actions in Poland by CIA as covert, including US intelligence representatives.It's really not something you can argue against VM, it's just a well established information on international history, which nobody disputes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- The section on Poland is irrelevant as it was neither covert nor a regime change. The trims are not arbitrary. We remove the stuff that 1) does not fit with the scope of the article (in other words, just because US has *a* foreign policy, does not make something a covert regime change) and 2) stuff that's not based on reliable sources. Deleting this article would probably be preferable. I see there was an AfD there once but it had enough votes for "Keep but improve" that it was kept. This improvement did not take place. Maybe it's time to go back to AfD. Volunteer Marek 00:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- This page is synthesis and a POV fork. All of the same material can be found in more specific articles. If we are merely trimming the article and not deleting it outright, deciding what to trim could indeed be construed as rather arbitrary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Took me a while to get around to this. Going through the changes one by one, and re-adding the material that seems appropriate to me.
1) Lead; most removals seemed fine, but the point about democratic governments has been made by a ton of authors (Grandin, Winn, Blakely, Joseph, etc, etc) not to mention the source itself; it should stay.
2) Re-added Russian civil war; source seems to call it covert, and from what I know it wasn't known among civillians here. The section on active military intervention is only there for context, so trimmed that.
3) National Endowment section; not a state agency, so off topic. Leaving it out.
4) Congo; the relevant parts here are CIA opposition to Guevara's forces, their plan to assassinate Lumumba, and their support to Mobutu. I am reinstating those paragraphs, with a couple of other sentences for context. The vast majority of the section is off topic.
5) Ghana; First part is utterly irrelevant; allegations seem relevant, considering where they are coming from.
6) Argentina; the section needs to be written, so reinstating with an expansion template
7) Poland; no regime change even attempted, so irrelevant?
8) Cambodia seems a priori to be an open armed intervention. If there was, in fact, covert assistance (which wouldn't surprise me) it can be added later. Ditto Angola, Afghanistan.
9) Haiti is borderline; leaving it out for now.
10) Gaza seems to have trivial covert action; if more sources are found, they can be added later, not my area of expertise.
11) Somalia seems very relevant; covert CIA assistance to one faction of the internal war.
12) CIA doesn't seem to have actively taken sides in Libya, so leaving that out.
13) Reinstating the Syrian section; copy-edit and condense if you like, but removing two paras is not the best way to do that.
Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria
Some people seem to have issues with basic English language so I will try to make it as clear as possible. Article is titled "Covert United States foreign regime change actions" So what would something require for inclusion? Really simple:
1. regime change action
2. by United States
3. that is covert operation
Farewell Dossier? No regime change action, just ordinary Cold war espionage and counter-espionage. Iraq 2002-2003? Iraq War was about as overt invasion as it can get, every war includes covert operations, should we add covert operations and espionage against Axis powers here? Somalia 2006? Internationally UN recognized government was called Transitional Federal Government while Islamic Courts Union was rebel group. Supporting legal recognized government against rebels is exactly opposite to "regime change action".--Staberinde (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Vulliamy, Ed (2002-04-21). "Venezuela coup linked to Bush team". The Observer. London. Retrieved 2008-11-20.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - VHeadline, June 24, 2004
- Campbell, Duncan (2002-04-29). "American navy 'helped Venezuelan coup'". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2008-11-20.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - "US denies backing Chavez plotters". BBC News. 2002-04-16. Retrieved 2008-11-21.
- Inspector General Report, U.S. Department of State
- Redirect-Class Cold War pages
- NA-importance Cold War pages
- Cold War task force articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class intelligence articles
- Intelligence task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Redirect-Class United States pages
- Low-importance United States articles
- Redirect-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Redirect-Class United States Government pages
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles