→Split the article?: Comment |
→Split the article?: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
:::::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. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:12, 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. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:13, 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). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{re|SandyGeorgia}} How do you recommend going forward with defining terms? [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 04:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Seems like a reasonable suggestion {{ping|WMrapids}}. Policy seems to prefer splitting of articles rather that removing content when an article becomes unwieldy. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 04:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
::::: Seems like a reasonable suggestion {{ping|WMrapids}}. Policy seems to prefer splitting of articles rather that removing content when an article becomes unwieldy. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 04:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:32, 17 November 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 166.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
What is regime supposed to mean
Like are we writing clickbait here or are we just going to consciously replicate the dysfunction we read 65.102.240.14 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime
- In politics, a regime (also "régime") is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural or social norms, etc. that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society. Franfran2424 (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Despite your opinion on its use in the media, ‘regime’s definition is appropriate here 2600:6C42:75F0:8D30:3D59:FE6A:23BC:F13A (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- We already have Criticism of United States foreign policy. Cambalachero (talk) 14:54, 11 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)
- 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)
- Disagree; these are very distinct topics and a merge is not warranted. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 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)
- 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)
Bolivia
Is there not enough evidence to include the Bolivian coup in 2019? Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- No. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change/Archive_5#Bolivia BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Im my opinion, yes. But we've to reunite some references BachareldeCananeia (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Monroe Doctrine & Tyler Doctrine sections?
How would one go about developing these sections as parts of the article? Each seems of particular importance to early non-isolationism, and merit inclusion. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
- @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)
- Entropyandvodka:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Overall, the section is okay, but not great. Quotes such as the
- 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)
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)
- @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 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)