→top: Fixed WikiProject template(s) to remove page from Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters or a sub-category, plus general fixes Tag: AWB |
|||
(139 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Latin America|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Intelligence=yes|US=yes|North-American=yes|South-American=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Intel=yes|US=yes|North-American=yes|South-American=yes|Latin-American=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Espionage|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Espionage|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject History|importance=Low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
| algo=old(90d) |
|||
| archive=Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
| counter=1 |
|||
| maxarchivesize=75K |
|||
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
| minthreadsleft=5 |
|||
| minthreadstoarchive=2 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|||
== Argentina == |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-01-18">18 January 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-04-27">27 April 2021</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/The_College_of_Wooster/Modern_Latin_America_(Spring_2020)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:WishIWasOnWiki|WishIWasOnWiki]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:00matthew2000|00matthew2000]], [[User:CharlesH.Woo|CharlesH.Woo]]. |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
The 1983 elections may be mentioned to give closure to the section, but that's it. The US has not been involved in any regime change in Argentina since then. The comment about the economy is a mess: the great depression was not caused by the economic policies of the military regime, but by the economic policies of Carlos Menem, established a decade afterwards. And, as explained in greater detail in [[Washington Consensus#Argentina]], some people may think that the crisis was caused by the policies proposed by the WC, but others think that the crisis was caused instead by local issues, such as the convertibility plan (which was not proposed by the WC). The US did not plot to remove De la Rúa from power, nor to appoint Rodríguez Saá or Duhalde: those were purely the result of local politics. [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 17:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Give some references about what you are saying. --[[User:Dereck Camacho|Dereck Camacho]] ([[User talk:Dereck Camacho|talk]]) 20:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::I mentioned many things. For which one do you want a reference? If you want the full picture, I have worked on the articles of all presidents of Argentina from 1983 to 2015 and made them good articles. [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 01:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well according to Wikipedia's policies you should reference everything. However the article no longer mentions De la Rúa, Saá or Duhalde. Although on that later one I think you're confussing their being mention as a result from the political and economical crisis as their being mention as named or appointed by the US. Not every single person name here was named or removed by US involvement, but a historical article should give a general picture and give as much context as possible. --[[User:Dereck Camacho|Dereck Camacho]] ([[User talk:Dereck Camacho|talk]]) 04:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::As it is written, the article confuses the economic crisis of the military regime and the 2001 crisis, as if they were the same one. There's almost a 20 years gap between both. De la Rua, Rodríguez Saá and Duhalde are not mentioned, but are implied, with the "provoking the resignation of several presidents" bit. Add that this article is named "United States involvement in regime change in Latin America", and the reader gets the picture that the US was somewhat involved in the 2001-2002 presidential crisis. References? The references already included will do. They do explain the 2001 crisis and the events closer in time that led to it... and then mention, as a trivia or footnote, that similar policies had been implemented many years in the past as well. [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 15:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Sorry but I fail to see your problem with the text. If the text does not outright says that the changing of presidents was direct doing ot the US you can't remove something just because someone maybe somewhere somehow may assume that, and on the other hand you said that the economic crisis had nothing to do with the WC applied both during the military regime and afterwards something that I doubt. --[[User:Dereck Camacho|Dereck Camacho]] ([[User talk:Dereck Camacho|talk]]) 20:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Venezuela 2020 == |
||
===Dispute resolution noticeboard=== |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#United States involvement in regime change in Latin America|I made a dispute resolution request about the article on 14 March]]. As it is natural in these situations, it is difficult to put a finger on which is the middle ground of this discussion. Based on the statements in the [[WP:DRN]], apparently what we can all agree on that is that the content about Venezuela needs to be modified and possibly trimmed; post 2019 events seem to be less disputed than the rest of the content. Please let me know if there's anything left to add. If we can say what we agree with, solving the disagreements should be easier. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 14:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I'll be [[Wikipedia:Be bold|bold]] and remove the section about Venezuela. When the section was first added by a dynamic IP, concern was expressed that the addition was motivated by [[WP:RECENTISM]]. Three years later, in an article that is mostly about coups and invasions, not any regime change has happened in the country and the United States has not been involved in any attempt thereof, as the section itself states. |
|||
French Guiana is included in the map as a target of US anti-democratic machinations, but it is not a sovereign country. It is an overseas department and region of France. [[User talk:twaj|twaj]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 06:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The section already mentions contradictory content regarding involvement in this venture, or even its intent, including that tn December 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the United States did not plan a military intervention in Venezuela; while saying that "we have said that all options are on the table", he also said that "we have learned from history that the risks from using military force are significant", as well as Michael Shifter's statement, president of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, that "military action of the United States against Venezuela would be contrary to the movements of the Trump administration to retire troops from Syria or Afghanistan." Not only that, but when María Corina Machado, leader of right-wing party Vente Venezuela, stressed the importance of a military option, Elliott Abrams, the United States Special Representative for the country, described María Corina's proposal as "surrealist", even going it as far as to mock and compare it to [[Gabriel García Márquez]]'s [[magic realism]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Abrams: plan de María Corina Machado me recuerda al realismo mágico de García Márquez |url=https://www.analitica.com/actualidad-internacional/abrams-propuesta-de-maria-corina-machado-me-recuerda-al-realismo-magico-de-garcia-marquez/ |access-date=9 January 2022 |agency=Analítica |date=1 September 2020}}</ref> |
|||
== Venezuela == |
|||
Not a single mention of the 2015 venezuelan elections ho Maduros party LOST badly?? [[User:Sotavento|Sotavento]] ([[User talk:Sotavento|talk]]) 18:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
The closest statements supporting this is AFP's memo regarding the divertion of US funds to Guaidó's "interim government, including office supplies; there has been a long standing consensus that support is not the same as involvement, particularly when it isn't clear how a regime change is taking place. This support is more akin to a debate club or model of United Nations for Guaidó, contrary to programs such as Syria's Timber Sycamore, where there has been explicit funding to weaponry and training to armed rebel groups. |
|||
:Why should there be any? [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
At the end, this sabre-rattling and empty threats appear to have had a more domestic interest, rather than a foreign one, aimed at winning votes from the Cuban and Venezuelan diaspora in the swing state of Florida and that never followed through (and apparently never will). As such, the section should be removed. On top of it all, the article still has length issues and could benefit from the removal of a section that borders on the fringe. I'm open to any comments regarding this change. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] has been removing the whole section on Venezuela either by commenting it out or by completely removing the text. It is fine to raise problems with the text or make edits to the text. It is *not* fine to simply remove the whole section or make it disappear completely for the ordinary reader by commenting it out. I have had to revert their attempts to effect this disappearance twice. I am asking this editor to follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss process rather than escalate to an edit war. [[User:Oska|Oska]] ([[User talk:Oska|talk]]) 13:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Pinging {{ping|WMrapids}} to explain why they are reinstating the section. It would be much appreciated if you could address previous points from this section. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 08:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Oska}} [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Oppose|I finished my response in the other ongoing RfC]], in case you're interested in reading it. The current section about Venezuela [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&diff=881950550&oldid=881624267 is based in this edit] by a SPA whose only edit in the encyclopedia was in this article. It is completely unreferenced, and taking a closer look at it can show why it is problematic: |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
:* {{tq|A fatal decrease in the price of oil, due to overproduction by the USA}} |
|||
:* {{tq|accusations of economic warfare, sanctions & blockades, conducted by the USA and its allies were not without merit}} |
|||
:* {{tq|Maduro was narrowly reelected during a UN-observed process.}} |
|||
:* {{tq|There have been accusations that this is an attempted coup d'etat by the USA and its allies.}} |
|||
:* {{tq|details and the truth are hard to distinguish from the propaganda emanating from both sides of this conflict.}} |
|||
== Terrible. == |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&diff=905033420&oldid=905032819 As I mentioned in my edit summary], there are serious concerns per [[WP:ORIGINAL]], [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:NPOV]] with the section, and while it is true that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&diff=882809599&oldid=882535694#Venezuela references were added afterwards to the text] and that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&diff=885319951&oldid=885146047 changes have been made to improve the neutrality], an important part of the text is still in this original contribution. For these reasons, at the very least I would like to propose the changes in the wordings unrelated to the removal of information, namely ''{{tq|"following actions by some of the military and media and demonstrations by the minority opposition"}}'' and ''{{tq|"demonstrations by the majority of the public and actions by most of the military."}}'' Given the current state of the section I think it should be removed, but I understand if content about Venezuela is needed and I can help to start it over. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 18:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: Thank you for this reply [[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]]. I appreciate what you're saying about your finding issues with the section in its current state and that you think it was developed from a weak foundation. But I found your removal of the section too radical a response to those concerns. Wikipedia articles that have been created and developed need to be proposed for deletion and a discussion is held before that action is completed. I think the same principle extends (although to a lesser degree) to a section of an article. There is no formal process for deletion of a section but if you think the deletion will be controversial or if you meet resistance to the deletion then I think it's appropriate to back off and discuss how it can be improved or reformed or, if still deemed necessary, make a good case for its deletion. |
|||
::Speaking for myself, I'm only here because I saw the listed RfC on the other related article. I haven't previously made edits to this article or the other and my edits here were only to revert the section deletion. My input here will remain at that - being opposed to the section deletion. If you want to make edits to the text of the section, or replace it with other text, then it will be up to others to engage with you on that. [[User:Oska|Oska]] ([[User talk:Oska|talk]]) 23:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: My apologies if my edit was seen as too radical; like you mentioned, it was precisely a bold edit, I hope I was able to clarify the motives with the previous explanation. Later on I will try to start over the section. Best wishes! --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 23:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment;''' The section can be commented and copied here for discussion.--[[User:MaoGo|MaoGo]] ([[User talk:MaoGo|talk]]) 06:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Sorry but this article is terrible. It ignores the larger context of the Cold War and America’s perception of the threat of the spread of Communism. The influence of NSC 68 is ignored even though it drove America’s foreign policy during the Cold War. https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsc-hst/nsc-68.htm |
|||
<blockquote>'''Venezuela'''<p> The election of [[Hugo Chávez]] in December 1998, dubbed the [[Bolivarian Revolution]] by supporters, marked a new Socialist direction for the Latin American nation, with the party named the [[United Socialist Party of Venezuela|United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV)]]. In 1999, voters approved a [[referendum]] on a [[1999 Venezuela Constitution|new constitution]] and in 2000, [[2000 Venezuelan presidential election|re-elected]] Chávez. In April 2002, Chávez was briefly ousted from power in the [[2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt]] following actions by some of the military and media and demonstrations by the minority opposition, but he was returned to power after two days as a result of demonstrations by the majority of the public and actions by most of the military. It has been alleged that the United States was involved in this coup attempt, due in part to members of the Bush administration holding meetings with opposition leaders.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/17/usa.venezuela|title=US 'gave the nod' to Venezuelan coup|last=Bellos|first=Julian Borger Alex|date=17 April 2007|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-06-14|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> <p> After winning election for two more terms, and another two constitutional referenda; failing one and winning one; [[Hugo Chávez|Chávez]] died in office in 2013, and was succeeded by [[Nicolás Maduro]] also of the PSUV. <p> Maduro's presidency has coincided with a decline in Venezuela's socioeconomic status, with crime, inflation, poverty and hunger increasing; western analysts have attributed Venezuela's decline to both Chávez and Maduro's economic policies,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/americas/venezuelan-food-crisis-weight-loss/|title=Venezuelan food crisis reflected in skipped meals and weight loss|author=Osmary Hernandez, Mariano Castillo and Deborah Bloom|date=21 February 2017|website=[[CNN]]|accessdate=28 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/02/the-maduro-regime-is-heading-for-a-soviet-style-collapse-venezuela/|title=Venezuela Is Heading for a Soviet-Style Collapse|last=Aslund|first=Anders|date=2 May 2017|accessdate=28 May 2017|magazine=[[Foreign Policy (magazine)|Foreign Policy]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2028442-cuando-el-barco-se-hunde|title=Cuando el barco se hunde|last=Zanatta|first=Loris|date=30 May 2017|newspaper=La Nación|accessdate=28 May 2017|language=Spanish|trans-title=When the ship sinks}}</ref><ref name="ELPAISfeb20152">{{cite news|url=http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/01/30/actualidad/1422646346_475356.html|title=Volver a ser pobre en Venezuela|last1=Scharfenberg|first1=Ewald|date=1 February 2015|access-date=3 February 2015|agency=El Pais}}</ref> while Maduro has blamed [[Speculative attack|speculation]] and [[economic warfare]] waged by his political opponents.<ref name="NYTjan201522">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/opinion/mr-maduro-in-his-labyrinth.html|title=Mr. Maduro in His Labyrinth|date=January 26, 2015|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=January 26, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-24883849|title=Venezuela's government seizes electronic goods shops|date=9 November 2013|access-date=19 February 2014|website=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref name="econOFF22">{{cite news|url=http://www.lapatilla.com/site/2014/04/21/maduro-anuncia-que-el-martes-arranca-nueva-ofensiva-economica/|title=Maduro anuncia que el martes arranca nueva "ofensiva económica"|date=22 April 2014|newspaper=La Patilla|access-date=23 April 2014}}</ref><ref name="LNecon22">{{cite news|url=http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1684248-maduro-insiste-con-una-nueva-ofensiva-economica|title=Maduro insiste con una nueva "ofensiva económica"|date=23 April 2014|newspaper=La Nacion|access-date=1 May 2014}}</ref><ref name="Edition.cnn.com22">{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/20/world/americas/venezuela-economy-decree-powers/|title=Decree powers widen Venezuelan president's economic war|date=20 November 2013|publisher=CNN|access-date=21 February 2014}}</ref><ref name="ENeconoffense22">{{cite news|url=http://www.el-nacional.com/economia/Primera-ofensiva-economica-inflacion-escasez_0_396560574.html|title=Primera ofensiva económica trajo más inflación y escasez|last=Yapur|first=Nicolle|date=24 April 2014|newspaper=El Nacional|access-date=25 April 2014|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140424172557/http://www.el-nacional.com/economia/Primera-ofensiva-economica-inflacion-escasez_0_396560574.html|archivedate=24 April 2014|deadurl=yes}}</ref> [[Shortages in Venezuela]] and decreased living standards resulted in [[2014 Venezuelan protests|protests beginning in 2014]] that escalated into daily marches nationwide, resulting in 43 deaths and a decrease in Maduro's popularity.<ref name="CNBCanalysts3">{{cite news|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/analysts-deem-venezuelas-situation-unsustainable.html|title='The Maduro approach' to Venezuelan crisis deemed unsustainable by analysts|last1=Washington|first1=Richard|date=22 June 2016|access-date=23 June 2016|publisher=[[CNBC]]}}</ref><ref name="BInightmare3">{{cite news|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/how-venezuela-went-bad-2016-6|title=Why Venezuela is a nightmare right now|last1=Lopez|first1=Linette|access-date=23 June 2016|agency=[[Business Insider]]}}</ref><ref name="Faria3">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/25/us-venezuela-protests-idUSKBN0LS29K20150225|title=Venezuelan teen dies after being shot at anti-Maduro protest|last1=Faria|first1=Javier|date=25 February 2015|newspaper=Reuters|accessdate=26 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="Usborne3">{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dissent-in-venezuela-maduro-regime-looks-on-borrowed-time-as-rising-public-anger-meets-political-repression-10070607.html|title=Dissent in Venezuela: Maduro regime looks on borrowed time as rising public anger meets political repression|last1=Usborne|first1=David|accessdate=26 February 2015|website=The Independent}}</ref> <p> On 20 May 2018, [[2018 Venezuelan presidential election|Maduro was reelected into the presidency]] in an election that had the lowest [[voter turnout]] in Venezuela's modern history,<ref name=":9">{{cite news|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-05-20/the-latest-pope-francis-prays-for-venezuelans|title=The Latest: Venezuela Opposition Calls Election a 'Farce'|last=|first=|date=21 May 2018|website=[[U.S. News & World Report]]|agency=Associated Press|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180521015319/https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-05-20/the-latest-pope-francis-prays-for-venezuelans|archive-date=21 May 2018|dead-url=yes|access-date=21 May 2018}}</ref> which as a result was described by the [[Atlantic Council]] and media such as the ''[[Financial Times]]'' as a [[Sham election|show election]]<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/venezuela-s-sham-election|title=Venezuela's Sham Election|last=Sen|first=Ashish Kumar|date=18 May 2018|work=[[Atlantic Council]]|access-date=20 May 2018|language=en-gb|quote=Nicolás Maduro is expected to be re-elected president of Venezuela on May 20 in an election that most experts agree is a sham}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ft.com/content/edd6c4a0-5906-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0|title=Venezuela's sham presidential election|last=|first=|date=16 May 2018|website=[[Financial Times]]|language=en-GB|access-date=20 May 2018|quote=The vote, of course, is a sham. Support is bought via ration cards issued to state workers with the implicit threat that both job and card are at risk if they vote against the government. Meanwhile, the country's highest profile opposition leaders are barred from running, in exile, or under arrest.}}</ref> The majority of nations in the Americas and the [[Western world]] refused to recognize the validity of this election and of the pro-Maduro [[2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election#Reactions|Constituent Assembly]], initiating their own sanctions against him and his administration as well, although allies such as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia and Turkey offered support and denounced what they described as interference in Venezuela's domestic affairs.<ref name=":1">{{cite web|url=http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=2457094&CategoryId=10717|title=Latin American Herald Tribune - China Calls on Venezuela to Respect Maduro's Re-election|last=|first=|date=|website=www.laht.com|access-date=2019-01-15}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{cite web|url=https://sputniknews.com/latam/201805221064669838-maduro-venezuela-election-results-russia/|title=Maduro Thanks Putin for Recognizing Outcome of Venezuelan Presidential Election|last=Sputnik|website=sputniknews.com|language=en|access-date=2019-01-15}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{cite web|url=https://havanatimes.org/?p=126497|title=Cuba Denounces US Campaign against Venezuela|last=Robinson|first=Circles|website=Havana Times|language=en-US|access-date=2019-01-15}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/01/19/586229/Qassemi-Pompeo-Venezuela-Abu-Dhabi|title=Iran supports Venezuelan government amid US meddling: Qassemi|last=|first=|date=January 19, 2019|website=[[PressTV]]|access-date=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/maduro-brother-stand-tall-erdogan-tells-venezuelan-president-after-us-move-140730|title=Maduro brother, stand tall, Erdoğan tells Venezuelan president after US move|last=|first=|date=24 January 2019|website=[[Anadolu Agency]]|access-date=}}</ref> <p> Despite encouragement to resign as president when his first term expired on 10 January 2019, Maduro [[Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro|was inaugurated]] for a new term on that date. This resulted in widespread condemnation; minutes after taking oath, the [[Organization of American States]] approved a resolution in a special session of its Permanent Council in which Maduro was declared illegitimate as President of Venezuela, urging that new elections be summoned.<ref name=":7">{{cite news|last=|first=|title=La OEA aprobó la resolución que declara ilegítimo al nuevo gobierno de Nicolás Maduro|url=https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2019/01/10/en-vivo-la-oea-debate-en-sesion-extraordinaria-la-asuncion-de-nicolas-maduro/|date=10 January 2019|accessdate=|work=Infobae|location=|page=|number=}}</ref> With their belief that his election was illegitimate, some nations removed their embassies from Venezuela, claimed that by retaking power, Maduro was converting Venezuela into an illegitimate ''[[de facto]]'' dictatorship.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics/venezuelas-maduro-starts-new-term-as-u-s-decries-him-as-usurper-idUSKCN1P40DH?il=0|newspaper=Reuters|title=Venezuela's Maduro starts new term, as US describes him as "usurper"|accessdate=10 January 2019|date=10 January 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/mundo/alemania-apoya-para-que-asuma-poder_265634|title=Alemania apoya para que asuma poder|trans-title=Germany supports Assembly taking power off Maduro|website=El Nacional|accessdate=10 January 2019|date=9 January 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/peru-paraguay-recall-diplomats-maduro-inauguration-190110180310100.html|title=Peru, Paraguay, etc. recall diplomats after Maduro inauguration|website=Al Jazeera|accessdate=10 January 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.asambleanacional.gob.ve/noticias/_an-se-declara-en-emergencia-ante-la-usurpacion-de-nicolas-maduro-en-el-cargo-de-la-presidencia-de-la|title=National Assembly declares State of Emergency with the usurpation of Maduro as President|website=Asamblea Nacional|accessdate=10 January 2019}}</ref> <p> Additionally, on 23 January 2019, the President of the National Assembly, [[Juan Guaidó]], was declared the acting President by that body. Guaidó was immediately recognized as the legitimate President by several nations, including the United States and the [[Lima Group]], as well as the Organization of American States. Maduro disputed Guaidó's claim and broke off diplomatic ties with several nations who recognized Guaidó's claim.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46980913|title=US says it now backs Venezuela opposition|last=|first=|date=2019-01-24|work=BBC News|access-date=2019-01-24|language=en-GB}}</ref> Maduro's government says the crisis is a ''[[coup d'état]]'' orchestated by the United States to topple him and control [[Oil reserves in Venezuela|the country's oil reserves]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.presidencia.gob.ve/Site/Web/Principal/paginas/classMostrarEvento3.php?id_evento=12708|title=Canciller Arreaza advierte que objetivo de plan golpista es el petróleo venezolano|publisher=presidencia.gob.ve|accessdate=30 January 2019|language=Spanish}}</ref><ref>{cite news|url=https://www.rt.com/news/450083-venezuela-fm-us-oil-coup/|title=‘Oil’ the ‘sole and real’ purpose behind US ‘coup’ attempt, says Venezuela’s foreign minister|publisher=RT|accessdate=30 January 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-maduro-afirma-petroleo-principal-motivo-presion-eeuu-contra-venezuela-20190130061636.html|title=Maduro afirma que el petróleo es el principal motivo de la presión de EEUU contra Venezuela|publisher=Europa Press|accessdate=30 January 2019|language=Spanish}}</ref> |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
:{{ping|Oska|MaoGo}} Copying section to comment per suggestion. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 09:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Also, some sections have nothing to do with US involvement in regime change in Latin America. Fr example, the first part of the Panama section. If a student gave this to me for a grade, he’d get a ‘D’ at best. --[[Special:Contributions/97.79.29.52|97.79.29.52]] ([[User talk:97.79.29.52|talk]]) 12:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Neutrality of this article == |
|||
:Hello friend. Thanks for pointing this out. Your comments sound reasonable, so if you have time, I would encourage you to start editing the article and fixing the issues you see. If you delete content, make sure to justify it in the edit summary. Use inline citations as much as possible and for anything that might be challenged by other editors. There are two ways to edit: source editor and visual editor. I recommend visual editor since it makes inline citations very easy (just hit the "cite" button). Also, feel free to create an account to get access to some quality of life features such as pinging, watchlist, and others. Happy editing. –[[User:Novem_Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User_talk:Novem_Linguae|talk]])</small> 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
It is extremely biased, but unfortunately that's Wikipedia, and we can't change it. There is no point in getting into an edit war with jobless leftists, who will ultimately win with numbers and sympathetic admins. [[User:Jej1997|jej1997]] ([[User talk:Jej1997|talk]]) 19:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I chose to add the POV (neutrality dispute) tag to this article. This is a controversial topic, and for good reason. However, there are several reasons I do not believe the article gives a fair viewpoint of the issue: |
|||
== Ten Tragic Days == |
|||
- Inconsistent use of charged language. Multiple US-backed leaders are described as “authoritarian” or “dictatorial”, but [[Omar Torijjos]], the unelected “Maximum Leader” who seized control over Panama in a military coup, is simply described as a “Left-wing Panamanian de facto ruler”. This is a clear imbalance. |
|||
In the article, 1913 Mexico coup d'etat isn't mentioned. The government of president Madero got overthrown by Gen. Huerta with financial and political support from the American embassy. I suggest it to be added. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:CoroneldelNorte|CoroneldelNorte]] ([[User talk:CoroneldelNorte#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CoroneldelNorte|contribs]]) </small> |
|||
- Failure to mention multiple competing narratives or disputes, driven by uncritical use of sources. Referring to the section on Panama again, the article uncritically refers to John Perkins’s [[Confessions of an Economic Hitman]], without mentioning that Perkins’s “findings” are heavily disputed by many. For another example, the article mentions that US officials met with Venezuelan opposition leaders prior to the 2002 coup attempt, without mentioning (as the article for the coup describes) that the US had discouraged a coup during these meetings. |
|||
== Venezuela intermin president plan == |
|||
- Repeatedly and simply describing the “Washington Consensus and Neoliberalism” as creating Latin America’s poverty problems. Not only is this strongly debatable (poverty was hardly foreign to the region prior to the 1970s), the article repeatedly fails to elaborate at all on these claims, or explain how neoliberalism supposedly creates poverty. The reader is just expected to take it at face value. |
|||
{{u|NoonIcarus}} Can you explain why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&diff=1181633500&oldid=1181622526 this edit] was removed besides the typical charge of [[WP:SYNTH]] or that it was not the stable version? You previously said that your edit removing information on Venezuela was bold, then cited a Wikipedia essay to support your claim, though [[WP:WEAKSILENCE|your argument can be quickly refuted]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 21:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
- Going well beyond the regime change events in question, again, inconsistently. For example, the article on Paraguay goes on at length about the Left’s electoral triumphs after the restoration of democracy. When right-wing or centrist parties when free elections, it is either unmentioned or described pejoratively, with the article, again, blaming all the country’s economic problems on their “neoliberal policies” (see the section on Brazil). Meanwhile, the article does not mention that US military interventions in Grenada and Panama led to the overthrow of the dictatorships and a swift restoration of democratic rule. Is this article only for describing “bad” interventions? |
|||
The result of all these things is that it feels like the article could have been written by the PR department of a “Pink Tide” political party. Even somebody without much education on this topic can feel how unbalanced the article is, just by reading it. It’s not a nuanced or even very detailed article, as much as it is brief, pejorative descriptions of various US-endorsed regime changes and goverenments. This needs a lot of work.[[User:Jogarz1921|Jogarz1921]] ([[User talk:Jogarz1921|talk]]) 14:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: I've removed the tag. Wikipedia describes events according to the [[WP:WEIGHT|views of published, reliable sources]]. Whether any of us think those sources are "fair" is irrelevant. Likewise, including any and all "competing narratives" would create a [[WP:FALSEBALANCE|false balance]]. To show an [[WP:BALANCE|actual imbalance]], you would need to demonstrate problems with the specific sources cited. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 23:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Unnecessary "accusations" section == |
|||
{{see also|Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Accusations_section}} |
|||
The "accusations" section, which only contains Venezuela, is confusing and unnecessary. Reliable sources, such as those already cited in the Venezuela section, clearly link the US to ''at least'' involvement the 2002 coup, through civil society assistance and early acknowledgement of the new government. Regime change occurred and the US was involved. I don't see how this could be any simpler. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:* ''{{tq|(...) Chávez '''accused''' the United States of being involved (...)}}'' |
|||
:* ''{{tq|(...) while Maduro has '''blamed''' speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents (...)}}'' |
|||
:* ''{{tq|(...) In early 2015, the Maduro government '''accused''' the United States of attempting to overthrow him. (...)}}'' |
|||
:* ''{{tq|(...) In 2016, Maduro again '''claimed''' that the United States was attempting to assist the opposition with a coup attempt. (...)}}'' |
|||
:* ''{{tq|(...) Maduro's government '''says''' the crisis is a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States to topple him and control the country's oil reserves.}} |
|||
:{{ping|Cmonghost}} The whole section consists in paragraphs with these statements. Terms such a "accused" and "blamed" does not appear to be in other sections, which is why Venezuela has its own, but if there are any other disputed allegations I'd be happy to support its inclusion below. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 20:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{re|Jamez42}} Some of the points in the Venezuela section are accusations, but that doesn't justify the movement of the entire subsection to a different section. Several of the points are more concrete, such as those sourced to the ''WPJ'' article about US aid, as well as the meetings that occurred between Bush admin officials and those involved in the coup. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 21:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: Again, the section consists for the most part on these accusations. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 22:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: {{re|Jamez42}} (a) That's because you removed the (reliably-sourced) concrete points. (b) That's still not a reason to create a separate section just for Venezuela—the purpose of sections is to ''organize the article'', not for editors to assess and label the validity of the information. The pre-existing organization of the article is by country, not by the nature of the content, and aspects that distinguish Venezuela from other countries should be (and already are) in the text, not conveyed through the section layout. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 17:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree that is a problem. And now we have multiple new sources that make it clear that the U.S. is involved in regime change in Venezuela: |
|||
:::::*{{Cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/02/22/696057482/trumps-venezuela-moves-follow-long-history-of-intervention-in-latin-america|title=Trump's Venezuela Moves Follow Long History Of Intervention In Latin America|website=NPR.org|language=en|access-date=2019-12-29}} |
|||
:::::*{{Cite news|url=https://www.ft.com/content/68e2d152-6c2f-11e9-a9a5-351eeaef6d84|title=US commitment to regime change in Venezuela tested|last=Williams|first=Aime|date=2019-05-01|work=Financial Times|access-date=2019-12-29|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
:::::*{{Cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/trump-learned-to-love-regime-change-venezuela/581878/|title=Trump’s Affinity for Strongmen Has a Big Exception|last=Gilsinan|first=Uri Friedman, Kathy|date=2019-02-02|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US|access-date=2019-12-29}} |
|||
:::::*{{Cite news|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/153283/reality-behind-trumps-coalition-regime-change-venezuela|title=The Reality Behind Trump’s Coalition for Regime Change in Venezuela|last=Weisbrot|first=Mark|date=2019-03-13|work=The New Republic|access-date=2019-12-29|issn=0028-6583}} |
|||
:::::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&type=revision&diff=933315163&oldid=933254110&diffmode=source moved] the section back. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&type=revision&diff=933318266&oldid=933315163&diffmode=source added] the four sources above and one more from 2019. I had previously added some of these same sources to [[United States involvement in regime change]], which {{u|Jamez42}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change&curid=37258993&diff=933080946&oldid=933044544&diffmode=source deleted] for reasons that are still unclear to me. See: [[Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Venezuela_2]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change&oldid=933308535#Venezuela_2 permalink]) --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== WPJ source == |
|||
Three statements sourced to a scholarly article in the ''World Policy Journal'' were removed on the following grounds: |
|||
* {{tq|reliance in a single source}} — Information drawn from a reliable source cannot be deleted simply because there is only one source listed in the article. The source is only used for three statements, which is far from unusual. |
|||
* {{tq|possible [[WP:SYNTH]]}} — Unclear how this could be the case; the source explicitly links US civil society assistance to the coup: |
|||
:: {{tq|there is no doubt that US civil society assistance has gone to organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway. Among the recipient of such aid was the Venezuelan trade union CTV, which worked closely with Pedro Carmona to oust Chávez. Moreover, some of the American organizations through which the NED channels its aid endorsed the coup.}} |
|||
* {{tq|disputed claims, such as the CTV's "participation" in the coup}} — It is unclear who disputes this other than the reverting editor. As seen in the quote above, the reliable source cited states that the CTV was involved. |
|||
I have restored the source and the statements. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 16:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Cmonghost}} The source is a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] because it is a research article by Omar G. Encarnación. As such, other sources should be provided to support facts, specially if it is about such a controversial topic such as the 2002 coup in Venezuela. The main [[WP:SYNTH]] problem is the content seeks to link "civil society assistance" directly with "regime change", along with many statements that I would proceed to explain. |
|||
:There is nothing in the article that suggests that the NED increased its assistance ''{{tq|As US-Venezuela relations deteriorated leading up to the coup}}'', only that ''{{tq|'''It has been reported''' that as conditions in Venezuela deteriorated and Chávez clashed with various business, labor and media groups, the National Endowment for Democracy stepped up its civil society assistance (...)}}'' (page 45). I added emphasis in "It has been reported" since besides the difference in the quotes, the author expresses doubt of this affirmation. |
|||
:The article continues quoting doubts towards the relationship between the civil society assistance and Chávez ouster: |
|||
:* ''{{tq|Whether any of that money was put into difrect efforts to oust Chávez is the subject of much conjecture. The State Department has put on hold a $1 million grant to the NED pending an invetigation into '''whether any recipients of the agency's funds went to groups that actively plotted against Chávez'''.}}'' (page 45) |
|||
:* ''{{tq|They add that their objective in Venezuela was "to create political space for opponents to Mr. Chávez, not to contribute to his ouster".}}'' (page 46) |
|||
:* ''{{tq|According to the NED's senior project officer for Latin America, the agency's funds went to specific projects designed "to bolster the democratic opposition in Venezuela -including training in civics, journalism and conflict resolution- and did not contribute to the attempted ouster of Mr. Chávez"}}'' (page 46) |
|||
:Furthermore, the article never states that this assistance was received by ''{{tq|groups involved in the coup}}'', but rather ''{{tq|organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway}}''. Albeit little, this is a crucial difference. |
|||
:I should note that outside the "The Role of U.S. Civil Society Assistance" section, there is plenty of background information about the events that led up to the coup, including Chavez's, which causes me to worry about [[WP:CHERRY]]. Should I mention that Chávez even admitted in a speech in the National Assembly that he sought to "create a crisis"? Taking into account this along with [[WP:PRIMARY]] and the failed verification, this text should be removed. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 20:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Forgot to mention, {{ping|Jogarz1921}} pointed out that the article does not mention that the US had discouraged a coup during these meetings. This needs to be addressed as well. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 20:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{re|Jamez42}}: |
|||
::* {{tq|The source is a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] because it is a research article by Omar G. Encarnación. As such, other sources should be provided to support facts, specially if it is about such a controversial topic such as the 2002 coup in Venezuela.}} |
|||
::: [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] says {{tq|Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable}}. It goes on to say that {{tq|One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ.}} Google Scholar lists 66 citations, which is a not-insubstantial amount for this type of article. |
|||
::* {{tq|The main [[WP:SYNTH]] problem is the content seeks to link "civil society assistance" directly with "regime change"}} |
|||
::: The author does that, not Wikipedia, so it's not synthesis. Please read [[WP:SYNTH]] again carefully and this should become clear. |
|||
::* {{tq|there is plenty of background information about the events that led up to the coup, including Chavez's, which causes me to worry about [[WP:CHERRY]]}} |
|||
::: The article is about US involvement, which is what is included. That's not [[WP:CHERRY]], it's complying with [[WP:COATRACK]]. The background information belongs on the article for the 2002 coup. |
|||
:: As for your other points, if you would like to incorporate more information from the article, or other articles, I have no problem with your doing so. What I took issue with was removing it wholesale on flimsy grounds. |
|||
:: — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 21:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{ping|Cmonghost}} I invite you to read [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]]: {{tq|Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so}}. The author never mentions "regime change", and instead only hypothesizes about a "civil society coup", and the same article allows doubt of the extent of the involvement of the US. The synthesis is done by the editors including the content. We would have to discuss if "civil society assistance", in the context that it is explained, constitute "regime change". Something similar has been discussed [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change|in the "United States involvement in regime change" talk page]], which I encourage reading. In any case, this is the theory of a single author, not a widely accepted affirmation, and in worst case scenario it would need to be attributed. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 22:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: {{re|Jamez42}} I'm disappointed to see that you removed the information again, with a false edit summary no less, while discussion is still ongoing. It would be more productive to follow [[WP:BRD]]. Note that in your haste to redact your dispreferred information, you rendered the article nonsensical: it now refers to "such civil society assistance" when civil society assistance is never mentioned. |
|||
:::: [[WP:SYNTH]] says: {{tq|Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.}} ''Only one source is cited'' for the information you removed, so ''multiple sources are not being combined.'' How on earth could it be considered synthesis? |
|||
:::: I have read [[WP:PRIMARY]]. Have you? [[WP:PRIMARY]] defines a "primary source" as {{tq|original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.}} Can you explain why you think the article in question fits that bill? Based on the criteria defined in [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] it appears to be a high-quality source. |
|||
:::: Also, can you please explain why you believe that a "civil society coup" would not be considered a form of "regime change"? It has the word "coup" in it, so I think that position would be hard to defend. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 03:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{Ping|Cmonghost}} I am troubled by the removal of sourced material as well--especially from academic work. However, because I do not have free access to the entire article, could you either: (1) point to an ''easy'' way to get one or (2) just give full passages from the source that supports the language that was deleted. If you could also provide the specific diffs where the material was deleted that will help. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|:::::}} {{re|David Tornheim}} Diffs where the content was removed, restored, and removed again, respectively: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&type=revision&diff=924230356&oldid=924229019][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&type=revision&diff=924555964&oldid=924230356][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&type=revision&diff=924611497&oldid=924588036] The article is available on [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40209803?casa_token=sSNwLo4tHBAAAAAA:qirW94fuEjtGBC8qw-TaJCyxlb28RwTT7I-G96nLUmeuQ5KFjHgrro8gyvIhWQ_kxw8x1l7OBMyTdCfXjxHPDnm5epFg-fbcajJt40siCnAaZgz3LIs5&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents Jstor] but if you don't have access I'm not sure how much of it I'm allowed to copy here due to [[WP:COPYVIO]]. There's a good deal of discussion of US involvement in the coup via civil society assistance; here's one relevant paragraph: |
|||
{{tqb|However, there is no doubt that U.S. civil society assistance has gone to organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway. Among the recipient of such aid was the Venezuelan trade union CTV, which worked closely with Pedro Carmona to oust Chavez. Moreover, some of the American organizations through which the NED channels its aid endorsed the coup. "Last night led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country," said George A. Folsom, head of the International Republican Institute, an organization affiliated with the Republican Party that is active in Venezuela and a recipient of NED grants.}} |
|||
— [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 19:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks. That's solid. I will restore the language. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 19:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|David Tornheim}} Don't. It isn't solid, it relies on a single source by a single author, Omar G. Encarnación, contrary to a scenario of several scholars agreeing on the same topic. There are several issues with including the section, as I have argued above, but I will copy for you to read for simplicity: |
|||
::{{tqb|There is nothing in the article that suggests that the NED increased its assistance ''{{tq|As US-Venezuela relations deteriorated leading up to the coup}}'', only that ''{{tq|'''It has been reported''' that as conditions in Venezuela deteriorated and Chávez clashed with various business, labor and media groups, the National Endowment for Democracy stepped up its civil society assistance (...)}}'' (page 45). I added emphasis in "It has been reported" since besides the difference in the quotes, the author expresses doubt of this affirmation. <br><br> The article continues quoting doubts towards the relationship between the civil society assistance and Chávez ouster <br><br> ''{{tq|Whether any of that money was put into difrect efforts to oust Chávez is the subject of much conjecture. The State Department has put on hold a $1 million grant to the NED pending an invetigation into '''whether any recipients of the agency's funds went to groups that actively plotted against Chávez'''.}}'' (page 45) <br><br> ''{{tq|They add that their objective in Venezuela was "to create political space for opponents to Mr. Chávez, not to contribute to his ouster".}}'' (page 46) <br><br> ''{{tq|According to the NED's senior project officer for Latin America, the agency's funds went to specific projects designed "to bolster the democratic opposition in Venezuela -including training in civics, journalism and conflict resolution- and did not contribute to the attempted ouster of Mr. Chávez"}}'' (page 46) <br><br> Furthermore, the article never states that this assistance was received by ''{{tq|groups involved in the coup}}'', but rather ''{{tq|organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway}}''. Albeit little, this is a crucial difference.}} |
|||
::Then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer declared that in the meetings with the opposition, opposition leaders were explicitly told that the United States would not support a coup |
|||
::If you are to restore it, use attribution and change the text to be faithful to the source at the very least. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 20:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Attribution works. I would not object to the addition of a sentence that summarizes the quotes provided by {{u|Jamez42}} above. {{u|Cmonghost}} Can you do that? You know the source better than I do. If another editor who has access to the source--including Jamez42--wants to do that, it seems like a good compromise. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Some of the quotations above are selective. For instance, while the quote {{tq|Whether any of that money was put into direct efforts to oust Chávez is the subject of much conjecture}} does appear in the article, it is followed by {{tq|there is no doubt that US civil society assistance has gone to organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway}}. Basically, it's not clear whether any NED money went directly toward funding the coup, but it ''is'' clear that NED-funded groups were involved in the coup, including CTV, which {{tq|worked closely with Pedro Carmona to oust Chavez}}. NED-funded groups also endorsed the coup along with the US, who called it a "victory for democracy". I'm not opposed to adding the denials from the NED's project officer and from Ari Fleischer, but these denials are a poor excuse for excluding the whole section, and don't overrule the other evidence. I can make the edit when I have some more time. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 22:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Cmonghost}} And using that quotation to argue for regime change is quite a stretch. Let's not forget that the problem remain that we are relying on a single source for taking these statements as fact. Taking the quote as it is only says that the NED funded groups, from the civil society it should be mentioned, that supported the coup. There are three problems here: first, that the aid had the intention of regime change; second, that the aid at the end was used to actively help with the coup, and last but not least, that the source says support but not involvement. As I mentioned above: ''{{tq|Furthermore, the article never states that this assistance was received by groups involved in the coup, but rather organizations that actively supported the coup once it was underway. Albeit little, this is a crucial difference.}}''. This does not hold water. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 10:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: {{re|Jamez42}} "Support" is a form of involvement. No one is saying the US gave them money and explicitly said "here, use this to go stage a coup." But the US funded groups hostile to Chávez who went on to stage a coup d'état. This is clearly relevant as it's discussed in reliable sources. Ergo it should be included in the article. This is a pretty simple issue. Here is another source: [https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/25/international/americas/us-bankrolling-is-under-scrutiny-for-ties-to-chvez.html]. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 03:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Boliva? Bolivia. == |
|||
Surely someone more thorough than I can get a section together on Bolivia. Mercy. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.88.23.106|173.88.23.106]] ([[User talk:173.88.23.106#top|talk]]) 08:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:[[Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Bolivia|A thread was started in the main article]]. I encourage you to read it, as well participate if you want to. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Deletion of sourced material--Bolivia and Venezuela == |
|||
{{ping|Jamez42}} Please explain your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&type=revision&diff=933336885&oldid=933333340&diffmode=source deletion] of well-sourced material on both Bolivia and Venezuela, and what you would do to rectify any concerns. I have created two sections here, one for Bolivia and one for Venezuela. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
===Bolivia=== |
|||
{{ping|Jamez42}} Please explain your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&type=revision&diff=933336885&oldid=933333340&diffmode=source deletion] of well-sourced material re: Bolivia and what you would do to rectify any concerns. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|David Tornheim}} You continue to say the content that you are adding "well-sourced". yet in this case the paragraph that you're referring to includes only a single source, which is based in declarations by Evo Morales. There also seems to be original research problems and weasel wording, the paragraph said that "many" agreed with this theory, and yet Al Jazeera seems to quote only Morales on this. The paragraph failed to mention which actions are considered as "regime change", and not to mention a non neutral [[WP:LABEL]] of "ousted". |
|||
:If I may, I would also like to advice you to add other parameters to the sources, per the reference format of Wikipedia, such as author, title, publisher name and date. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 12:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
===Venezuela=== |
|||
{{ping|Jamez42}} Please explain your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&type=revision&diff=933336885&oldid=933333340&diffmode=source deletion] of well-sourced material re: Venezuela and what you would do to rectify any concerns. |
|||
Your explanation at [[Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Venezuela_2]] does not justify the deletion of this material. I addressed your concern of using the word "crippling", by putting it in quotes. . There you had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change&type=revision&diff=933197408&oldid=933174622&diffmode=source said]: |
|||
::''{{tq|The U.S. efforts for regime change in Venezuela intensified in January 2019 with the increase of crippling sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and warnings.}}'' is not the best phrasing that can be included, and [[WP:LABEL|labels]] such as "crippling" do not help at all with neutrality. Particular care should be taken considering that because there is an extensive history of [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:NPOV]] complaints about the article. |
|||
<p>I believe I addressed your concern by putting "crippling" in quotes as is the word "debilitating". Both words are int he [[WP:RS]]. How do you propose to change that so that it is no longer a problem. I also changed January 2019 to 2019, since the [[WP:RS]] for 2019 clearly states that the sanctions have been increasing. |
|||
<p>{{tq|Particular care should be taken considering that because there is an extensive history of [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:NPOV]] complaints about the article.}} |
|||
I do not see the point of complaining about past problems. The issue is the new material. Are you claiming that the addition is not [[WP:NPOV]] and/or is [[WP:SYNTH]]. If it is not [[WP:NPOV]], what would you do to fix that? I already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change&type=revision&diff=933100352&oldid=933089066&diffmode=source asked you before] this exact same question in the [[Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Venezuela_2|other section]] and you never answered the question. |
|||
<p>If you claim it is [[WP:SYNTH]], I see no validity to such a claim. The material is in all the referenced material. If you claim it is not, please state exactly what has been synthesized in the sentences that is not in the [[WP:RS]]. [[Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America#WPJ_source|In this section above]] you asserted [[WP:SYN]] as well, but were not able to prove it. |
|||
<p> |
|||
<p>I also included new [[WP:RS]], but you have asserted no problem with it. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|David Tornheim}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change&diff=933351794&oldid=933321119 See the response in the main article's talk page]. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 12:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== OAS involvement in U.S. regime change in Latin America == |
|||
The [[Organization of American States]] (OAS) was involved with regime change re: Cuba, Argentina, Dominican Republic, ... in Latin America, and now Venezuela. [[WP:RS]]: |
|||
* {{Cite web|url=https://fpif.org/the-organization-of-american-states-shouldnt-be-run-by-regime-change-enthusiasts/|title=The Organization of American States Shouldn't Be Run by Regime Change Enthusiasts|date=2019-01-23|website=Foreign Policy In Focus|language=en-US|access-date=2020-01-01}} |
|||
* {{Cite web|url=http://www.coha.org/are-the-organization-of-american-states-imperialist-roots-too-deep-to-extirpate-with-today/|title=Are the Organization of American States’ Imperialist Roots too deep to Extirpate Today?|last=COHA|language=en-US|access-date=2020-01-01}} |
|||
* {{Cite web|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Organization-of-American-States|title=Organization of American States|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en|access-date=2020-01-01}} |
|||
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{ping|David Tornheim}} The first reference seems to be an opinion article with biased wording: |
|||
::''{{tq|hobbled by pro-Trump leadership}}'' |
|||
::''{{tq|Almagro has acted against many of the basic principles and mandates of the organization and consistently represented U.S. interests above those of its neighbors}}'' |
|||
::''{{tq|unsubstantiated claims against Venezuela and Cuba}}'' |
|||
::''{{tq|Almagro’s attempts at regime change in Venezuela}}'' |
|||
::''{{tq|wisely decided against continuing to play the role of Almagro-Trump lackey in the OAS}}'' |
|||
::''{{tq|Almagro has been far more interested in anti-democratic regime change than in facing these critical challenges}}'' |
|||
:*The Council in Hemispheric Affairs is a partisan think tank, which describes in its about page: |
|||
:{{tqb|COHA also has condemned Washington’s unexamined and reflexive policy towards Cuba and Venezuela, and the negative impact of neo-liberal reforms on the average Latin American. COHA was opposed to the adherence of the U.S. to NAFTA under the thesis that it shouldn’t have been initiated until basic Mexican institutions were truly democratic, its trade unions free enough to negotiate as equals, and the government purged of endemic corruption.}} |
|||
:*The second reference appers to have the same problem and situation. |
|||
::''{{tq|Are the Organization of American States’ Imperialist Roots too deep to Extirpate Today?}}'' |
|||
::''{{tq|The OAS Imperialist Confirmation and the Exclusion of Cuba}}'' |
|||
::''{{tq|the United States pressed “anti-communist” coercive operations and collective measures, with tacit support of the OAS machinery}}'' |
|||
:*The third refence does not make mention at all about "regime change" or any similar event. |
|||
:Opinionated and partisan sources do not amount to reliable sources. However, even considering its content, the articles don't make mention at specific actions by the OAS to promote regime change. Even if it did, the article is about regime change promoted by the United States. The problem that the article does not mention the OAS or any involvement remains, so including it in "See also" is original research. For these reasons, I will remove the OAS from the See also section. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 04:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Missing countries, e.g. Cuba == |
|||
Seems like a bunch of countries are missing, including Cuba, Dominican Republic, etc. See [[Template:United_States_intervention_in_Latin_America]]. {{ping|Dereck Camacho}} Since you created the article, I'll ask you: Was it just an oversight? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I did as much as I could as a single person, and I'm not very well versed on those cases. I use mostly cases that I'm familiar with. --[[User:Dereck Camacho|Dereck Camacho]] ([[User talk:Dereck Camacho|talk]]) 20:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Fair enough. Those countries are conspicuously absent, so we really need to mention them, or readers will get the wrong idea. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Be my guest. --[[User:Dereck Camacho|Dereck Camacho]] ([[User talk:Dereck Camacho|talk]]) 21:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Material to be added == |
|||
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:United_States_intervention_in_Latin_America&oldid=920224722 this version] of the template on United States intervention in Latin America, much material that is conspicuously absent from this article needs to be added (ideally as a summary): |
|||
Policy |
|||
* [[Monroe Doctrine]] (1823) |
|||
* [[Platt Amendment]] (1901–1904) |
|||
* [[Roosevelt Corollary]]/[[Big Stick ideology]] (1904) |
|||
* [[Good Neighbor policy]] (1933) |
|||
* [[Dollar diplomacy]] |
|||
* [[Banana Wars]] |
|||
* [[Mexican–American War]] (1846–1848) |
|||
* [[Spanish–American War]] (1898) |
|||
* [[Mexican Border War (1910–1919)|Mexican Border War]] (1910–1919) |
|||
* [[United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution]] (1916–1919) |
|||
Overt actions and occupations |
|||
* [[Paraguay expedition]] (1858) |
|||
{{done}} [[First Occupation of Cuba]] (1899–1902) |
|||
* [[Panama–Colombia separation]] and [[Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty]] (1903) |
|||
{{done}} [[Second Occupation of Cuba]] (1906–1909) |
|||
* [[History of Honduras|Occupations of Honduras]] |
|||
* [[United States occupation of Nicaragua|Occupation of Nicaragua]] (1912–1933) |
|||
* [[United States occupation of Veracruz|Occupation of Veracruz]] (1914) |
|||
* [[United States occupation of Haiti|Occupation of Haiti]] (1915–1934) |
|||
* [[United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–1924)|Occupation of the Dominican Republic]] (1916–1924) |
|||
* [[American occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66)|Occupation of the Dominican Republic]] (1965–66) |
|||
* [[Invasion of Grenada]] (1983) |
|||
* [[United States invasion of Panama|Invasion of Panama]] (1989) |
|||
[[Covert operation|Covert actions]] |
|||
* [[1954 Guatemalan coup d'état]] |
|||
{{done}} [[Bay of Pigs Invasion]] (1961) |
|||
* [[Cuban Project|Operation MONGOOSE]] |
|||
* [[1964 Brazilian coup d'état]] |
|||
* [[Project FUBELT]] |
|||
* [[1973 Chilean coup d'état]] |
|||
Disputed claims |
|||
* [[2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt]] |
|||
* [[2004 Haitian coup d'état|2004 Haitian rebellion]] |
|||
The above is a check list of things that can be added. If you have added the material from these articles (and included the wikilink) here, please replace the asterisk with "done" check-mark, using this template: |
|||
:{{tlx|done}} |
|||
I think nearly all of them are relevant. If you disagree with adding some of them, please discuss below. |
|||
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
P.S. The first step I will do is just add a wikilink to the appropriate articles as a "see also" or "main". I will check them off even if there is no summary yet. We may want a separate list of this for summaries. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Merge proposal == |
|||
{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was '''not merged'''. There is an unanimous consensus against the merge.[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 14:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
Considering the recent proposals and since there is overlap in themes and content between the [[United States involvement in regime change]] and this article, I propose merging the [[United States involvement in regime change in Latin America]] article into the [[United States involvement in regime change]] article. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 21:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' -- Although this article needs work, there are themes that apply, such as the [[Monroe Doctrine]] and the role of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&oldid=933581642#OAS_involvement_in_U.S._regime_change_in_Latin_America OAS in regime change]. This article already gets [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America 400 views per day]. Besides editors have already put a lot of work into this article. If it was to be merged, that should have happened a while ago. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|David Tornheim}} The main article already includes many of the themes you mentioned: |
|||
::* Mexico and Monroe Doctrine (1865-1867) |
|||
::* Cuba, Platt Amendment and Banana Wars (1898–1902, 1906-1909, 1960s) |
|||
::* Honduras and Good Neighbor Policy (1903–1925) |
|||
::* Nicaragua (1909–1910, 1912–1933) |
|||
::* Haiti (1915–1934) |
|||
::* Dominican Republic (1916–1924, 1961, 1965–66) |
|||
::* Guatemala (1954) |
|||
::* Brazil (1961–1964) |
|||
::* Chile (1970–1973) |
|||
::* Grenada (1983) |
|||
::* Panama (1989) |
|||
::This would make the article a content fork in many ways ([[WP:CONTENTFORK]], [[WP:REDUNDANTFORK]]). I suppose a position can be established here, but this would also implicate extra work to both start the article and to maintain the content. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''', despite similar topics the merge would not only made the recieving article too long but also may preclude the correct extension of the central subject which is the specific cases of the region. Besides, there are some areas that are controversial like Venezuela and Bolivia that may not be welcomed adisions there. However what can be done is to move some examples from Latin America in there to here. --[[User:Dereck Camacho|Dereck Camacho]] ([[User talk:Dereck Camacho|talk]]) 00:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Adding to the comments made above. The United States has a long history in the involvement in regime change or attempted regime change as the main article illustrates. For each intervention cited in the main article [[United States involvement in regime change]], there is most likely enough source material to write separate articles in depth. This is exactly the case in regard to the article [[United States involvement in regime change in Latin America]]. The page should not be merged but rather expanded into as much depth as possible to include details not mentioned in the first article. [[User:Boston1775|Boston1775]] ([[User talk:Boston1775|talk]]) 00:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per above arguments.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 18:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' the merge makes the article more longer.[[User:Hispring|Hispring]] ([[User talk:Hispring|talk]]) 09:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|||
== Venezuela edits: Jan 2020 == |
|||
Overt action by the United States against Venezuela did not begin until 2019. Of course there are allegations and relations were sour prior to 2019, but obvious support for regmie change began following the second inauguration of Maduro. Before anything prior to 2019 is added, there '''must''' be wide support by reliable sources that regime change was attempt before. Until then, it seems to be [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] if such information is added.----[[User:ZiaLater|<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i>]] ([[User talk:ZiaLater|<span style="color: ForestGreen">talk</span>]]) 03:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change&diff=934004370&oldid=934002937 I added this section] as a possible version that talks about 2019, per the discussion in the main article's talk page, that gives a brief introduction and deals with both Guaidó's funding and sanctions. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 05:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Notice == |
|||
This article mentioned here: [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Regime_change_(esp._Venezuela)]]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== AN/I == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|This article has been mentioned in this AN/I]]. |
|||
I'm leaving this notification to any editor that is interested in reading or participating. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 05:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== POV == |
|||
I am not watchlisting this article, but am adding here the link describing the POV: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=935168584#Case_in_point] Should these problems be resolved via consensus, please ping me so I can offer an opinion on whether the tag should be removed. Should they NOT be resolved, please do not ping me. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Venezuela 2020 == |
|||
:That account relies much too heavily on Neumann -- one journalist's opinions, and he is no fan of Guiado or the Trump administration. This is an area where we have hundreds of sources; relying on one account is UNDUE. Neumann's opinions should be attributed, and kept within [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|David Tornheim}} I noticed you copied some info from the main US regime change article, but there is actually some content on Venezuela already listed here, just in a separate "Accusations" section. I would support merging the two sections and moving the content to the main part of the article, rather than the strange special-case section it exists in now, but as it is the two sections are redundant. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 23:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok. Well I will add more sources then. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Cmonghost}} Yes, I support combining them, but we should get rid of material that has nothing to do with regime change effort by the U.S. such as: |
|||
:Many thanks for the insight, Sandy. Besides what you mentioned, this section has always been disputed: it was first added by a dynamic IP in the eve of the presidential crisis, and in relied both in recentism as in speculation. Four years afterwards, it was demonstrated that said regime change never took place. Another reason for the dispute is that support (US recognizing Guaidó) is different from involvement. |
|||
::Chávez died in office in 2013, and was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro. Maduro's presidency has coincided with a decline in Venezuela's socioeconomic status, with crime, inflation, poverty and hunger increasing. Analysts and critics have attributed Venezuela's decline to both Chávez and Maduro's economic policies, while Maduro has blamed speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents. |
|||
:These issues have been thoroughly discussed in the past and it surely means opening another can of worms. The discussion can be renewed, sure, but it'd be ideal to provide a briefing of the main points and to avoid repeating them. Regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 08:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::On 20 May 2018, Maduro was reelected in an election that had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela's modern history, which as a result was described by some analysts as a show election, The majority of nations in the Americas and the Western world refused to recognize the validity of this election and of the pro-Maduro Constituent Assembly, initiating their own sanctions against him and his administration as well, although allies such as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia and Turkey offered support and denounced what they described as interference in Venezuela's domestic affairs. |
|||
::Involvement in regime change doesn't exclude unsuccessful attempts. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 00:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Maduro was inaugurated for a new term on that date, which resulted in widespread condemnation. On 23 January 2019, the President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, was declared the acting President by that body. Guaidó was recognized as the legitimate president by several nations, including the United States and the Lima Group, as well as the Organization of American States. Maduro disputed Guaidó's claim and broke off diplomatic ties with several nations who recognized Guaidó's claim. |
|||
::{{ping|NoonIcarus}} Figured I'd let you know that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&diff=prev&oldid=1181921400 I made this edit]. Take a look, but there are plenty of sources for inclusion. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 01:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Regarding this last paragraph, something simple indicating that the U.S. was backing regime change by backing Guaido should be included without mentioning all the other details that are talking points for Guaido. |
|||
:We should also mention the U.S.'s putting a bounty on Maduro's head, sending naval ships with allegations of drug-trafficking. (It's certainly relevant to the recent [[Macuto Bay raid]].) |
|||
:And we should mention the U.S.'s denial of being involved with the [[Macuto Bay raid]], but include those who have said that the U.S. was aware, involved, and/or supported it. I have seen some [[WP:RS]] on that. I'm not sure that having former Green Berets and a U.S. based company makes it relevant to U.S. regime efforts except to the extent the [[WP:RS]] tries to link it to the administration. Maybe it being a U.S.-company alone could be relevant, but I don't believe this article includes privately-backed coups as much as state-sponsored and supproted coups. |
|||
:Anything else that is missing? |
|||
:I believe it would be better to work this one out until it is somewhat stable before having to deal with a copy of the change to the other article. But I suppose that is up other editors, and I might change my mind based on how this is going... --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{re|David Tornheim}} I agree with most of this. Most of the content surrounding Maduro's election is not relevant, but the information about the US and its allies disputing the validity of the elections can be retained (in a more [[WP:NPOV]] form) since this has been used as a justification for the regime change efforts. I haven't seen [[WP:RS]] linking the Silvercorp coup attempt to the US other than (as you note) the bounty, which served as an incentive for Goudreau et al., but if there are sources for this then it can certainly be included. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{re|Cmonghost}} Please feel free to start, or we can discuss changes first. I was about to start, but I see some challenges: (1) It would be nice to merge without the POV tag coming with. (2) Each of the paragraphs I suggested deleting end with U.S. regime change efforts. So with that in mind, I am breaking this up into three sections for each paragraph, to see if we can agree on how to fix the problem of [[WP:SYN]] and only including context to the extent that the [[WP:RS]] does. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 13:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I also feel that we should prefer [[WP:RS]]--especially high quality scholarly work (e.g. [[Noam Chomsky]]<ref>{{Cite web|title=Listen to Noam Chomsky dismantle the 'unimaginable' Western propaganda on Venezuela|url=https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/03/08/listen-to-noam-chomsky-dismantle-the-unimaginable-western-propaganda-on-venezuela/|date=2019-03-08|website=The Canary|language=en-GB|access-date=2020-05-27}}</ref>)--that independently assesses actions as U.S. involvement in regime change, rather than focus on the U.S. or Venezuelan governments' more subjective interpretations. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
::::I would like to point out that the Canary is generally unreliable and not high quality per [[WP:RSP]]--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 18:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Economic warfare=== |
|||
Current text: |
|||
:[[Hugo Chávez|Chávez]] died in office in 2013, and was succeeded by [[Nicolás Maduro]]. Maduro's presidency has coincided with a decline in Venezuela's socioeconomic status, with crime, inflation, poverty and hunger increasing. Analysts and critics have attributed Venezuela's decline to both Chávez and Maduro's economic policies,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/americas/venezuelan-food-crisis-weight-loss/|title=Venezuelan food crisis reflected in skipped meals and weight loss|author=Osmary Hernandez, Mariano Castillo and Deborah Bloom|date=21 February 2017|website=[[CNN]]|accessdate=28 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/02/the-maduro-regime-is-heading-for-a-soviet-style-collapse-venezuela/|title=Venezuela Is Heading for a Soviet-Style Collapse|last=Aslund|first=Anders|date=2 May 2017|accessdate=28 May 2017|magazine=[[Foreign Policy (magazine)|Foreign Policy]]}}</ref><ref name="ELPAISfeb20152">{{cite news|url=http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/01/30/actualidad/1422646346_475356.html|title=Volver a ser pobre en Venezuela|last1=Scharfenberg|first1=Ewald|date=1 February 2015|access-date=3 February 2015|agency=El Pais}}</ref> while Maduro has blamed [[Speculative attack|speculation]] and [[economic warfare]] waged by his political opponents.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-24883849|title=Venezuela's government seizes electronic goods shops|date=9 November 2013|access-date=19 February 2014|website=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref name="LNecon22">{{cite news|url=http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1684248-maduro-insiste-con-una-nueva-ofensiva-economica|title=Maduro insiste con una nueva "ofensiva económica"|date=23 April 2014|newspaper=La Nacion|access-date=1 May 2014}}</ref><ref name="Edition.cnn.com22">{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/20/world/americas/venezuela-economy-decree-powers/|title=Decree powers widen Venezuelan president's economic war|date=20 November 2013|publisher=CNN|access-date=21 February 2014}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
<p>Problem: [[WP:SYN]]. The background should only be included to the extent that [[WP:RS]] mentioning economic warfare does. The main focus of the content should be on U.S. involvement in regime change efforts, not on the history of what was going on in the country prior to the U.S. getting involved. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 14:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Sanctions in 2018=== |
|||
Current text: |
|||
:On 20 May 2018, [[2018 Venezuelan presidential election|Maduro was reelected]] in an election that had the lowest [[voter turnout]] in Venezuela's modern history,<ref name=":9">{{cite news|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-05-20/the-latest-pope-francis-prays-for-venezuelans|title=The Latest: Venezuela Opposition Calls Election a 'Farce'|date=21 May 2018|access-date=21 May 2018|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180521015319/https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-05-20/the-latest-pope-francis-prays-for-venezuelans|archive-date=21 May 2018|agency=Associated Press|website=[[U.S. News & World Report]]}}</ref> which as a result was described by some analysts as a [[show election]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/venezuela-s-sham-election|title=Venezuela's Sham Election|last=Sen|first=Ashish Kumar|date=18 May 2018|work=[[Atlantic Council]]|access-date=20 May 2018|quote=Nicolás Maduro is expected to be re-elected president of Venezuela on May 20 in an election that most experts agree is a sham}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ft.com/content/edd6c4a0-5906-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0|title=Venezuela's sham presidential election|date=16 May 2018|website=[[Financial Times]]|access-date=20 May 2018|quote=The vote, of course, is a sham. Support is bought via ration cards issued to state workers with the implicit threat that both job and card are at risk if they vote against the government. Meanwhile, the country’s highest profile opposition leaders are barred from running, in exile, or under arrest.}}</ref> The majority of nations in the Americas and the [[Western world]] refused to recognize the validity of this election and of the pro-Maduro [[2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election#Reactions|Constituent Assembly]], initiating their own sanctions against him and his administration as well, although allies such as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia and Turkey offered support and denounced what they described as interference in Venezuela's domestic affairs.<ref name=":1">{{cite web|url=http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=2457094&CategoryId=10717|title=Latin American Herald Tribune - China Calls on Venezuela to Respect Maduro's Re-election|last=|first=|date=|website=www.laht.com|access-date=2019-01-15}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{cite web|url=https://havanatimes.org/?p=126497|title=Cuba Denounces US Campaign against Venezuela|last=Robinson|first=Circles|website=Havana Times|language=en-US|access-date=2019-01-15}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/maduro-brother-stand-tall-erdogan-tells-venezuelan-president-after-us-move-140730|title=Maduro brother, stand tall, Erdoğan tells Venezuelan president after US move|last=|first=|date=24 January 2019|website=[[Anadolu Agency]]|access-date=}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
<p>Problem: [[WP:SYN]]. The background should only be included to the extent that [[WP:RS]] mentioning sanctions whose purpose is regime change does. The main focus of the content should be on U.S. involvement in regime change efforts, not on the history of what was going on in the country prior to the U.S. taking some action. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 14:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::The article currently mostly consists in actions that are clear involvement and mostly successful, including the section about Haiti that you yourself added ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&diff=prev&oldid=1148406478]). The issue remains that support must be distinguished from actual involvement. Adding Venezuela is just a case of [[WP:RECENTISM]], further demonstrated too by being the longest section that the article would have had. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===23 January 2019=== |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
Current text: |
|||
{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} I have tried all that I could to provide sources that support [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20States%20involvement%20in%20regime%20change%20in%20Latin%20America&diff=1182584320&oldid=1182187441 this inclusion in the article]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&diff=1179019455&oldid=1178033831 You previously informed me] about [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] along with other information regarding the process and following a review, it appears that an RfC may be appropriate. Since I do not want to interrupt Wikipedia with an unnecessary RfC, do you think this would be appropriate as well?--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Maduro [[Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro|was inaugurated]] for a new term on that date, which resulted in widespread condemnation. On 23 January 2019, the President of the National Assembly, [[Juan Guaidó]], was declared the acting President by that body. Guaidó was recognized as the legitimate president by several nations, including the United States and the [[Lima Group]], as well as the [[Organization of American States]]. Maduro disputed Guaidó's claim and broke off diplomatic ties with several nations who recognized Guaidó's claim.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46980913|title=US says it now backs Venezuela opposition|last=|first=|date=2019-01-24|work=BBC News|access-date=2019-01-24|language=en-GB}}</ref> Maduro's government says the crisis is a ''[[coup d'état]]'' orchestrated by the United States to topple him and control [[Oil reserves in Venezuela|the country's oil reserves]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-maduro-afirma-petroleo-principal-motivo-presion-eeuu-contra-venezuela-20190130061636.html|title=Maduro afirma que el petróleo es el principal motivo de la presión de EEUU contra Venezuela|accessdate=30 January 2019|publisher=Europa Press|language=Spanish}}</ref> Guaidó rejects the characterization of his actions as a coup, saying that his movement is backed by peaceful volunteers.<ref name="ReadyDie">{{cite news|url=https://www.euronews.com/2019/02/18/i-m-ready-to-die-for-my-country-s-future-juan-guaido-tells-euronews|title='I'm ready to die for my country's future,' Juan Guaido tells Euronews|author=Borges, Anelise|date=18 February 2019|work=Euronews|accessdate=18 February 2019}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
<p>Problem: [[WP:SYN]]. The background should only be included to the extent that [[WP:RS]] mentioning U.S. involvement in regime change does. The main focus of the content should be on U.S. involvement in regime change. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 14:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:It's just my opinion, but I doubt you'll get support through an RFC. I'm not going to comment on whether the events in Venezuela should be included, but 14k of text when the invasion and overthrow of Panama is covered in one sentence seems way to much (Nicaragua only gets two). |
|||
:Maduro reelection is relatively important is what officially lead to many government to not accept Maduro legitimacy, break relations with Venezuela and subsequently support Guaidó, including US.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 18:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:If you're going to start an RFC you need to think first about what you might get supply for. If you start one asking for the sun and the moon I doubt you'll get support. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 18:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:: I agree with this, as said above, {{tq|the information about the US and its allies disputing the validity of the elections can be retained (in a more WP:NPOV form) since this has been used as a justification for the regime change efforts}}. It can definitely be slimmed down though. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 21:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} Thanks for the prompt reply. Not necessarily asking for 14k of text, just the bare minimum of inclusion. Much of the explanatory text was to provide citations, etc. to support inclusion, though it can be slimmed down. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Then as I said if you feel an RFC is the next step make sure it has a simple question about a defined point. I get feeling the communities patience is wearing thin for discussions/RFCs in this area that contain walls of text. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 20:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am surprised that we hadn't had an RfC here to discuss what "involvement" means (probably because it has been discussed in parallel with other subjects). I suggest we discuss that before moving on. --[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That's easy; involvement in regime change is whatever reliable sources deem it may be. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think that you will agree that "involved" does not appear explicitly in all of the entries in this article (see Bolivia) and "involvement" could cover too many broad situations.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 16:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Read my reply above again. You're suggesting that we remove "involvement" from the title of this article? Are you suggesting that the United States was "involved" only if regime change was successful? Feel free to create [[United States involvement in successful regime change in Latin America]], but everything seems bright and clear according to the sources. Creating an argument about semantics is unnecessary. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
=== Scope, terms, definition === |
|||
===Merging "Accusations" with main text=== |
|||
{{ |
ReyHahn wrote: {{tq2|I am surprised that we hadn't had an RfC here to discuss what "involvement" means (probably because it has been discussed in parallel with other subjects). I suggest we discuss that before moving on. --[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)}} Article content ranges from |
||
# countries where there was clear U.S. intervention demonstrated by the due weight of reliable sources supporting that (Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba Bay of Pigs), to; |
|||
::{{re|ReyHahn}} {{ping|Cmonghost}} suggested moving the material and I agree. I don't see why it should not be moved. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
# countries where the U.S. endorsing a certain government is included as "involvement" (current text on, for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&oldid=1183260668#Guatemala Guatemala]), or that combined with dubious weight issues that include one-source opinions rather than a due weight of sources (eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&oldid=1183260668#Brazil Brazil]); or US officials merely visiting the country or had relationships with officials (eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&oldid=1183260668#Argentina Argentina]); to |
|||
:::Because it is mostly minor involvements or Maduro's just accusing US.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 19:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
# countries where the entry is almost entirely based on primary sources (eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&oldid=1183260668#Chile Chile]), or countries where the entry is based on poorly-written, incomplete or unreliable sources indicating CIA involvement (eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&oldid=1183260668#Ecuador Ecuador]); |
|||
:::: {{re|ReyHahn|David Tornheim}} This has been discussed quite a bit in a previous discussion, but the main problem with the Accusations section, in my view, is that it involves WP editors' judgment about whether or not content should be labeled as "accusations" or actual regime change efforts, which gets us into [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]] territory. Moreover, there are aspects of the situation that clearly don't pertain to "accusations" but concrete actions taken by the US (such as sanctions or bounties placed on officials). Better to accurately describe the regime change efforts and/or accusations in the main part of the article, and if the reliable sources indicate that a particular event is only an accusation, that can be made clear in the text. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 20:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
and so on. What is this article about? What is the criteria for inclusion? That should be discussed and scope defined; cherry-picking to find one, some, few or several sources that use the words "regime change" (particularly when most don't describe a given country intervention that way) should not be a basis for inclusion; what should the basis be? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{ec}} Exactly. That is what is done in the [[United_States_involvement_in_regime_change]], where accused or accusation comes up seven times, and there is no distracting section titled "Accusations". That section didn't come into existence until July 2019 and never had strong support in either article. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that's an issue. Our page on [[Regime change]] is a good start: {{tq|'''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 (polity)|state's]] most critical leadership system, administrative apparatus, or [[bureaucracy]]. Regime change may occur through domestic processes, such as [[revolution]], [[Coup d'état|coup]], or reconstruction of government following [[Failed state|state failure]] or [[civil war]]. It can also be imposed on a country by foreign actors through invasion, [[Interventionism (politics)|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 [[Ideology|ideologies]].}} So, to be included here, fitting that description is an absolute minimum. But I would say that not only should at least one reliable source should say that the US was involved in an incident it describes as regime change (otherwise we're reliant on original research and synthesis), but that we should only include if the preponderance of RSs say this (otherwise we're cherry-picking sources rather than promoting a neutral point of view). Finally, there's the question of whether unsuccessful or incomplete regime change should be included, e.g. incidents where the US intervened but there was no change of regime, or where they wanted to intervene but didn't, etc. I'd say we should avoid these, at risk of incoherence. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 12:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have really had a hard time following [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change]], I do not know if a consensus was ever reached to decide what constitutes an "involvement in regime change", but we should clearly detail what has officially led to it and be clear that it is established as so outside for sources that are not partial to (or deliberately against) US or Maduro.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 21:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::On reflection, wouldn't it be better to have this discussion at [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change]] and then whatever policy is decided there should be followed in this and any other branch articles from that? [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 10:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I don't think a consensus was ever reached on what constitutes "regime change" for the purposes of this article, unfortunately. From a quick glance, I think the sources currently in the section look pretty solid (looks like mostly mainstream newspapers and scholarly sources) but if there are specific objections to any, we can of course discuss them. — [[User:Cmonghost|cmonghost]] 👻 ([[User talk:Cmonghost|talk]]) 21:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree that would be convenient. The articles have different structures but are about the same topic. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::U.S. involvement in regime change is a scholarly term. We use what the [[WP:RS]] does. We discussed this before: |
|||
::No success does not mean that "involvement" didn't occur. Involvement is involvement, so if a reliable source says involvement happened, then it is verifiable and can be placed. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 12:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{tq|A title such as "United States involvement in regime change, in regime preservation, in foreign election interference and in attempts and combinations of the foregoing" would be quite awkward and not in keeping with general WP style. It's sufficient that the title conveys the thrust of the article. The introduction clarifies the scope by providing a more comprehensive description. Also as noted by others in this section, this broader scope is consistent with how scholars in this field understand the scope of regime change actions.--[[User:NYCJosh|NYCJosh]] ([[User talk:NYCJosh|talk]]) 22:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
:::::::::{{tq|'''Agree''' per [[User:NYCJosh|NYCJosh]]. NYCJosh: This issue has been resurrected at [[Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Scope_2]]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{comment}} Discussion has been moved to [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Scope of article]].--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 12:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==RfC: Inclusion of Venezuela== |
|||
There isn't a consensus to remove the POV tag, even less to merge the sections. It's dissapointing that this was done without seeking further discussion or notifying previous involved editors. Pinging {{ping|Cambalachero|Dereck Camacho|Oska|Jogarz1921|Sangdeboeuf|ZiaLater}} (SandyGeorgia asked not to be pinged until a consensus was reached. As ReyHahn accurately points out, the section currently only deals with "minor involvements or Maduro's just accusing US", something that I pointed out some months ago in the [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Unnecessary "accusations" section|section talking about the Accusations]]: |
|||
{{closed rfc top|result= '''Withdrawn''' for now. Consensus reached to instead determine what includes "involvement". [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 12:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) }} |
|||
Should a section on Venezuela be included in the article?--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20States%20involvement%20in%20regime%20change%20in%20Latin%20America&diff=1183182542&oldid=1183182397 Taking a look at this edit], there are sufficient sources to include a section on Venezuela in this article. The sources clearly indicate that the United States was involved in regime change efforts in Venezuela. While all of the text present in the edit is not necessary, the inclusion of Venezuela is appropriate.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tqb|''(...) Chávez '''accused''' the United States of being involved (...)'' <br> ''(...) while Maduro has '''blamed''' speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents (...)'' <br> ''(...) In early 2015, the Maduro government '''accused''' the United States of attempting to overthrow him. (...)'' <br> ''(...) In 2016, Maduro again '''claimed''' that the United States was attempting to assist the opposition with a coup attempt. (...)'' <br> ''(...) Maduro's government '''says''' the crisis is a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States to topple him and control the country's oil reserves.'' <br><br> The whole section consists in paragraphs with these statements. Terms such a "accused" and "blamed" does not appear to be in other sections, which is why Venezuela has its own -- [[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 20:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)}} |
|||
*:This (another WMrapids premature RFC) needs to stop; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&diff=1183043084&oldid=1183023667 ReyHahn raised a valid point for discussion above that was ignored], and {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}'s comment about the community's patience is spot on-- and extends to all the Venezuelan articles and RFCs where this has been a recurring problem. The scope of the question is too ill-defined to resullt in any meaningful answer or concensus, and this comes after patiently showing WMrapids how to craft a consensus RFC/RM at another article. Patience is exhausted. Shoving premature and poorly discussed content into articles is not good editing. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::{{re|SandyGeorgia}} I actually specifically consulted {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} on this, who suggested above that {{tq|"if you feel an RFC is the next step make sure it has a simple question about a defined point"}}. Well, "Should a section on Venezuela be included in the article?" seems to be a clear and simple question. So instead of attacking the user, maybe you could provide your opinion on inclusion? [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I could provide an opinion on inclusion once the discussion ReyHahn advocated is had; the RFC question is too vague to result in anything meaningful. We've seen at other articles where some editors think anything, however defined, is a ''coup''; definition of terms and scope would be a useful first step. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:I need to read this through properly but as a quick comment I don't think that Jacobin or Yaffe are good sources to use in a contentious area. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 17:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::and I'm curious about Revista Controversia, which my IP won't let me open due to malware or something, so am dubious about it being an RS. It doesn't have an article on es.wikipedia. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 18:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I agree with BobFromBrockley on all three sources; we have scores of unbiased reliable sources in this area. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Please wait''' <s>I guess this is just another {{u|WMrapids}}</s> Let us not rush into an RfC yet. Not everything has to be decided with an RfC. Why not make an RfC to decide what involvement means first?--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 18:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{re|ReyHahn}} Please strike your comment. This is not a place to [[Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS|cast aspersions]] or to discuss something off-topic. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::Deciding what inclusion criteria the article uses could have been a good idea before starting this RFC. As it would give participants some measure to base their comments on. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 18:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::The issue with this argument is that users involved (including ReyHahn) did not raise ''any'' concerns about inclusion criteria for the past five years until this RfC ''specifically'' on Venezuela arose. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::WMrapids, there are problems with many articles, I do not have the time to factcheck and raise concenrs in every article in Wikipedia, not even in all of the articles I am following. You are right that we should not cast aspersions, I recommend that you also please avoid casting aspersions about me.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 18:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::WMrapids I'm just an uninvolved editor trying to offer advice. ReyHahn idea of defining the inclusion criteria for article is a good one, and if done would answer this question (if the actions in Venezuela meet the criteria they would be included, if they didn't then any other similar situation wouldn't either). If the question of inclusion criteria came down to an RFC it would also be a useful use of the communities time, as it would answer the question for any similar situations in the future. Rather than trying to have an RFC about ever specific event one at a time. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Having a strict definition would leave the determination of "involvement" up to the opinions of a select group of ''users'' and not ''sources'', which is inappropriate. If a reliable source clearly says that involvement occurred, then it occurred as long as Wikipedia is concerned. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Are you suggesting that we remove Bolivia from this list because the sources do not say "involvement" or are you suggesting that any action taken by the US in favor or against a government is involvement. I think we could try to answer that first, it will allow us to avoid having multiple RfC every time that a country needs to be added or removed. Just looking for a source with the right term is just as interpretative.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*WMrapids please consider slowing down with this RfC. Other users have shown support that it might be rushed and that an alternative wording might be helpful. You have contacted at least 8 Wikiprojects after I told you to wait and discuss.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 18:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' as premature. There is a well established procedure. Please use it. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' as premature. There are other options still open than bulldozing. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose:''' Besides the other users reasons, cyclical discussions are happening as many of the reasons cited for inclusion have already been said at some point. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 00:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{comment}} {{ping|The Banner|ReyHahn|Gog the Mild|ActivelyDisinterested|SandyGeorgia|NoonIcarus}} For those involved, what would be best moving forward with this article? If we are going to discuss a user-based definition for what constitutes "involvement", it should be a binding consensus, which means a discussion with ample participation. Would an RfC on a definition be more appropriate? Again, not trying to "rush" an RfC (you can see that I asked for guidance above) but this decision should have more participation than a handful of users.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 03:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I honestly don't know how you expect me to answer this question when I have quite literally spent the last few months of my life trying to show you how to do it correctly on other articles. I can't keep repeating myself, and we keep having to rehash discussions because you haven't read them. I don't know what else you think I can add, since to this point you haven't acknowledged my advice or heeded my examples of how to proceed. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 04:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
It's very frustrating and a pity that so much explanation has been disregarded. It's important to note that not only has the definition of regime change has been disputed, but also if the named events constitute said change, or if there was even involvement by the US at all, as it is the case with the 2002 coup. |
|||
::I asked for a way forward on this particular topic, not mudslinging towards me. As I said, every RfC has been raised in good faith, ''especially'' this one with which I specifically asked for advice before opening it. So, sorry that I'm trying to find a consensus... [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 09:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well if you ping me, wanting a specific response from me, on a page I'm already following, you're going to get my frank opinion about this proliferation of RFCs. The question of what definitions and terms are being used on this page is a real problem, that question wasn't addressed before this RFC went forward, and it's obvious from looking at the different countries mentioned in the article that it's a POV hodgepodge. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&oldid=1183301578#Scope,_terms,_definition I'll expand on that problem, which should have been addressed first, at the section where ReyHahn first raised that query.] I've tried to show you elsewhere that rushed RFCs often lead to [[GIGO]] conclusions and ongoing dispute and I've tried to show you how to take the time to formulate a request for feedback to avoid that. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Multiple reliable sources would be a good start. Not just one opinion. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 09:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::That sounds reasonable. And for existing sections that have limited sources, we could place the [[Template:More citations needed section]] for a determined amount of time before potential removal. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Unfortunately, it works the other way round: first removal then a proposal for a new properly sourced text. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 11:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I think that work at the [[Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis]] article might be better, as it already has some of the content and the bar for inclusion is "lower", since its scope is narrower and said involvement is not limited to "regime change". --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|David Tornheim}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&oldid=958983456#Accusations I ask you to please restore the section to its original version], which means restoring the POV tag and splitting the section. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I |
:Sorry for the late response, I am partially in favor of an alternative RfC. Closing this one and working on a draft to comment on would be one way to go.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 11:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
*In view of what I see has happened, following the pointer by [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] above, I '''oppose''' the proposal of this "RfC" as a matter of principle and irrespective of any merits it might have. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 09:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{edit conflict}} {{re|Jamez42}} I am sorry for taking out the POV tag, I did not understood the whole problem. I thought that the discussion was closed and as nobody contested the content in "accusation" section in a while I discarded the template. David was around and decided to add more content and merge sections with accusations, in part because the template wasn't there anymore. I propose that we revert to the previous "stable" version.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' perhaps the proposer should withdraw the RfC - or someone else should [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]] close it - the general opinion seems to be that the RfC is premature. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 10:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc bottom}} |
Latest revision as of 03:24, 4 April 2024
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 27 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WishIWasOnWiki. Peer reviewers: 00matthew2000, CharlesH.Woo.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Venezuela 2020
Dispute resolution noticeboard
I made a dispute resolution request about the article on 14 March. As it is natural in these situations, it is difficult to put a finger on which is the middle ground of this discussion. Based on the statements in the WP:DRN, apparently what we can all agree on that is that the content about Venezuela needs to be modified and possibly trimmed; post 2019 events seem to be less disputed than the rest of the content. Please let me know if there's anything left to add. If we can say what we agree with, solving the disagreements should be easier. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll be bold and remove the section about Venezuela. When the section was first added by a dynamic IP, concern was expressed that the addition was motivated by WP:RECENTISM. Three years later, in an article that is mostly about coups and invasions, not any regime change has happened in the country and the United States has not been involved in any attempt thereof, as the section itself states.
The section already mentions contradictory content regarding involvement in this venture, or even its intent, including that tn December 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the United States did not plan a military intervention in Venezuela; while saying that "we have said that all options are on the table", he also said that "we have learned from history that the risks from using military force are significant", as well as Michael Shifter's statement, president of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, that "military action of the United States against Venezuela would be contrary to the movements of the Trump administration to retire troops from Syria or Afghanistan." Not only that, but when María Corina Machado, leader of right-wing party Vente Venezuela, stressed the importance of a military option, Elliott Abrams, the United States Special Representative for the country, described María Corina's proposal as "surrealist", even going it as far as to mock and compare it to Gabriel García Márquez's magic realism.[1]
The closest statements supporting this is AFP's memo regarding the divertion of US funds to Guaidó's "interim government, including office supplies; there has been a long standing consensus that support is not the same as involvement, particularly when it isn't clear how a regime change is taking place. This support is more akin to a debate club or model of United Nations for Guaidó, contrary to programs such as Syria's Timber Sycamore, where there has been explicit funding to weaponry and training to armed rebel groups.
At the end, this sabre-rattling and empty threats appear to have had a more domestic interest, rather than a foreign one, aimed at winning votes from the Cuban and Venezuelan diaspora in the swing state of Florida and that never followed through (and apparently never will). As such, the section should be removed. On top of it all, the article still has length issues and could benefit from the removal of a section that borders on the fringe. I'm open to any comments regarding this change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @WMrapids: to explain why they are reinstating the section. It would be much appreciated if you could address previous points from this section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- ^ "Abrams: plan de María Corina Machado me recuerda al realismo mágico de García Márquez". Analítica. 1 September 2020. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
Terrible.
Sorry but this article is terrible. It ignores the larger context of the Cold War and America’s perception of the threat of the spread of Communism. The influence of NSC 68 is ignored even though it drove America’s foreign policy during the Cold War. https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsc-hst/nsc-68.htm
Also, some sections have nothing to do with US involvement in regime change in Latin America. Fr example, the first part of the Panama section. If a student gave this to me for a grade, he’d get a ‘D’ at best. --97.79.29.52 (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hello friend. Thanks for pointing this out. Your comments sound reasonable, so if you have time, I would encourage you to start editing the article and fixing the issues you see. If you delete content, make sure to justify it in the edit summary. Use inline citations as much as possible and for anything that might be challenged by other editors. There are two ways to edit: source editor and visual editor. I recommend visual editor since it makes inline citations very easy (just hit the "cite" button). Also, feel free to create an account to get access to some quality of life features such as pinging, watchlist, and others. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It is extremely biased, but unfortunately that's Wikipedia, and we can't change it. There is no point in getting into an edit war with jobless leftists, who will ultimately win with numbers and sympathetic admins. jej1997 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Ten Tragic Days
In the article, 1913 Mexico coup d'etat isn't mentioned. The government of president Madero got overthrown by Gen. Huerta with financial and political support from the American embassy. I suggest it to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoroneldelNorte (talk • contribs)
Venezuela intermin president plan
NoonIcarus Can you explain why this edit was removed besides the typical charge of WP:SYNTH or that it was not the stable version? You previously said that your edit removing information on Venezuela was bold, then cited a Wikipedia essay to support your claim, though your argument can be quickly refuted. WMrapids (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- That account relies much too heavily on Neumann -- one journalist's opinions, and he is no fan of Guiado or the Trump administration. This is an area where we have hundreds of sources; relying on one account is UNDUE. Neumann's opinions should be attributed, and kept within due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. Well I will add more sources then. WMrapids (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the insight, Sandy. Besides what you mentioned, this section has always been disputed: it was first added by a dynamic IP in the eve of the presidential crisis, and in relied both in recentism as in speculation. Four years afterwards, it was demonstrated that said regime change never took place. Another reason for the dispute is that support (US recognizing Guaidó) is different from involvement.
- These issues have been thoroughly discussed in the past and it surely means opening another can of worms. The discussion can be renewed, sure, but it'd be ideal to provide a briefing of the main points and to avoid repeating them. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Involvement in regime change doesn't exclude unsuccessful attempts. WMrapids (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @NoonIcarus: Figured I'd let you know that I made this edit. Take a look, but there are plenty of sources for inclusion. WMrapids (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- The article currently mostly consists in actions that are clear involvement and mostly successful, including the section about Haiti that you yourself added ([1]). The issue remains that support must be distinguished from actual involvement. Adding Venezuela is just a case of WP:RECENTISM, further demonstrated too by being the longest section that the article would have had. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: I have tried all that I could to provide sources that support this inclusion in the article. You previously informed me about WP:RFCBEFORE along with other information regarding the process and following a review, it appears that an RfC may be appropriate. Since I do not want to interrupt Wikipedia with an unnecessary RfC, do you think this would be appropriate as well?--WMrapids (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's just my opinion, but I doubt you'll get support through an RFC. I'm not going to comment on whether the events in Venezuela should be included, but 14k of text when the invasion and overthrow of Panama is covered in one sentence seems way to much (Nicaragua only gets two).
- If you're going to start an RFC you need to think first about what you might get supply for. If you start one asking for the sun and the moon I doubt you'll get support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for the prompt reply. Not necessarily asking for 14k of text, just the bare minimum of inclusion. Much of the explanatory text was to provide citations, etc. to support inclusion, though it can be slimmed down. WMrapids (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then as I said if you feel an RFC is the next step make sure it has a simple question about a defined point. I get feeling the communities patience is wearing thin for discussions/RFCs in this area that contain walls of text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am surprised that we hadn't had an RfC here to discuss what "involvement" means (probably because it has been discussed in parallel with other subjects). I suggest we discuss that before moving on. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's easy; involvement in regime change is whatever reliable sources deem it may be. WMrapids (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think that you will agree that "involved" does not appear explicitly in all of the entries in this article (see Bolivia) and "involvement" could cover too many broad situations.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Read my reply above again. You're suggesting that we remove "involvement" from the title of this article? Are you suggesting that the United States was "involved" only if regime change was successful? Feel free to create United States involvement in successful regime change in Latin America, but everything seems bright and clear according to the sources. Creating an argument about semantics is unnecessary. WMrapids (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think that you will agree that "involved" does not appear explicitly in all of the entries in this article (see Bolivia) and "involvement" could cover too many broad situations.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's easy; involvement in regime change is whatever reliable sources deem it may be. WMrapids (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am surprised that we hadn't had an RfC here to discuss what "involvement" means (probably because it has been discussed in parallel with other subjects). I suggest we discuss that before moving on. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then as I said if you feel an RFC is the next step make sure it has a simple question about a defined point. I get feeling the communities patience is wearing thin for discussions/RFCs in this area that contain walls of text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for the prompt reply. Not necessarily asking for 14k of text, just the bare minimum of inclusion. Much of the explanatory text was to provide citations, etc. to support inclusion, though it can be slimmed down. WMrapids (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Scope, terms, definition
ReyHahn wrote:
I am surprised that we hadn't had an RfC here to discuss what "involvement" means (probably because it has been discussed in parallel with other subjects). I suggest we discuss that before moving on. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Article content ranges from
- countries where there was clear U.S. intervention demonstrated by the due weight of reliable sources supporting that (Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba Bay of Pigs), to;
- countries where the U.S. endorsing a certain government is included as "involvement" (current text on, for example, Guatemala), or that combined with dubious weight issues that include one-source opinions rather than a due weight of sources (eg Brazil); or US officials merely visiting the country or had relationships with officials (eg Argentina); to
- countries where the entry is almost entirely based on primary sources (eg Chile), or countries where the entry is based on poorly-written, incomplete or unreliable sources indicating CIA involvement (eg Ecuador);
and so on. What is this article about? What is the criteria for inclusion? That should be discussed and scope defined; cherry-picking to find one, some, few or several sources that use the words "regime change" (particularly when most don't describe a given country intervention that way) should not be a basis for inclusion; what should the basis be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that's an issue. Our page on Regime change is a good start:
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.
So, to be included here, fitting that description is an absolute minimum. But I would say that not only should at least one reliable source should say that the US was involved in an incident it describes as regime change (otherwise we're reliant on original research and synthesis), but that we should only include if the preponderance of RSs say this (otherwise we're cherry-picking sources rather than promoting a neutral point of view). Finally, there's the question of whether unsuccessful or incomplete regime change should be included, e.g. incidents where the US intervened but there was no change of regime, or where they wanted to intervene but didn't, etc. I'd say we should avoid these, at risk of incoherence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)- On reflection, wouldn't it be better to have this discussion at Talk:United States involvement in regime change and then whatever policy is decided there should be followed in this and any other branch articles from that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that would be convenient. The articles have different structures but are about the same topic. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- No success does not mean that "involvement" didn't occur. Involvement is involvement, so if a reliable source says involvement happened, then it is verifiable and can be placed. WMrapids (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- On reflection, wouldn't it be better to have this discussion at Talk:United States involvement in regime change and then whatever policy is decided there should be followed in this and any other branch articles from that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Discussion has been moved to Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Scope of article.--WMrapids (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
RfC: Inclusion of Venezuela
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should a section on Venezuela be included in the article?--WMrapids (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Include: Taking a look at this edit, there are sufficient sources to include a section on Venezuela in this article. The sources clearly indicate that the United States was involved in regime change efforts in Venezuela. While all of the text present in the edit is not necessary, the inclusion of Venezuela is appropriate.--WMrapids (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- This (another WMrapids premature RFC) needs to stop; ReyHahn raised a valid point for discussion above that was ignored, and ActivelyDisinterested's comment about the community's patience is spot on-- and extends to all the Venezuelan articles and RFCs where this has been a recurring problem. The scope of the question is too ill-defined to resullt in any meaningful answer or concensus, and this comes after patiently showing WMrapids how to craft a consensus RFC/RM at another article. Patience is exhausted. Shoving premature and poorly discussed content into articles is not good editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: I actually specifically consulted ActivelyDisinterested on this, who suggested above that
"if you feel an RFC is the next step make sure it has a simple question about a defined point"
. Well, "Should a section on Venezuela be included in the article?" seems to be a clear and simple question. So instead of attacking the user, maybe you could provide your opinion on inclusion? WMrapids (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)- I could provide an opinion on inclusion once the discussion ReyHahn advocated is had; the RFC question is too vague to result in anything meaningful. We've seen at other articles where some editors think anything, however defined, is a coup; definition of terms and scope would be a useful first step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: I actually specifically consulted ActivelyDisinterested on this, who suggested above that
- I need to read this through properly but as a quick comment I don't think that Jacobin or Yaffe are good sources to use in a contentious area. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- and I'm curious about Revista Controversia, which my IP won't let me open due to malware or something, so am dubious about it being an RS. It doesn't have an article on es.wikipedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with BobFromBrockley on all three sources; we have scores of unbiased reliable sources in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- and I'm curious about Revista Controversia, which my IP won't let me open due to malware or something, so am dubious about it being an RS. It doesn't have an article on es.wikipedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- This (another WMrapids premature RFC) needs to stop; ReyHahn raised a valid point for discussion above that was ignored, and ActivelyDisinterested's comment about the community's patience is spot on-- and extends to all the Venezuelan articles and RFCs where this has been a recurring problem. The scope of the question is too ill-defined to resullt in any meaningful answer or concensus, and this comes after patiently showing WMrapids how to craft a consensus RFC/RM at another article. Patience is exhausted. Shoving premature and poorly discussed content into articles is not good editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please wait
I guess this is just another WMrapidsLet us not rush into an RfC yet. Not everything has to be decided with an RfC. Why not make an RfC to decide what involvement means first?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)- @ReyHahn: Please strike your comment. This is not a place to cast aspersions or to discuss something off-topic. WMrapids (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Deciding what inclusion criteria the article uses could have been a good idea before starting this RFC. As it would give participants some measure to base their comments on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- The issue with this argument is that users involved (including ReyHahn) did not raise any concerns about inclusion criteria for the past five years until this RfC specifically on Venezuela arose. WMrapids (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- WMrapids, there are problems with many articles, I do not have the time to factcheck and raise concenrs in every article in Wikipedia, not even in all of the articles I am following. You are right that we should not cast aspersions, I recommend that you also please avoid casting aspersions about me.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- WMrapids I'm just an uninvolved editor trying to offer advice. ReyHahn idea of defining the inclusion criteria for article is a good one, and if done would answer this question (if the actions in Venezuela meet the criteria they would be included, if they didn't then any other similar situation wouldn't either). If the question of inclusion criteria came down to an RFC it would also be a useful use of the communities time, as it would answer the question for any similar situations in the future. Rather than trying to have an RFC about ever specific event one at a time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Having a strict definition would leave the determination of "involvement" up to the opinions of a select group of users and not sources, which is inappropriate. If a reliable source clearly says that involvement occurred, then it occurred as long as Wikipedia is concerned. WMrapids (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that we remove Bolivia from this list because the sources do not say "involvement" or are you suggesting that any action taken by the US in favor or against a government is involvement. I think we could try to answer that first, it will allow us to avoid having multiple RfC every time that a country needs to be added or removed. Just looking for a source with the right term is just as interpretative.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Having a strict definition would leave the determination of "involvement" up to the opinions of a select group of users and not sources, which is inappropriate. If a reliable source clearly says that involvement occurred, then it occurred as long as Wikipedia is concerned. WMrapids (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- The issue with this argument is that users involved (including ReyHahn) did not raise any concerns about inclusion criteria for the past five years until this RfC specifically on Venezuela arose. WMrapids (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Deciding what inclusion criteria the article uses could have been a good idea before starting this RFC. As it would give participants some measure to base their comments on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ReyHahn: Please strike your comment. This is not a place to cast aspersions or to discuss something off-topic. WMrapids (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- WMrapids please consider slowing down with this RfC. Other users have shown support that it might be rushed and that an alternative wording might be helpful. You have contacted at least 8 Wikiprojects after I told you to wait and discuss.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as premature. There is a well established procedure. Please use it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as premature. There are other options still open than bulldozing. The Banner talk 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: Besides the other users reasons, cyclical discussions are happening as many of the reasons cited for inclusion have already been said at some point. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment: @The Banner, ReyHahn, Gog the Mild, ActivelyDisinterested, SandyGeorgia, and NoonIcarus: For those involved, what would be best moving forward with this article? If we are going to discuss a user-based definition for what constitutes "involvement", it should be a binding consensus, which means a discussion with ample participation. Would an RfC on a definition be more appropriate? Again, not trying to "rush" an RfC (you can see that I asked for guidance above) but this decision should have more participation than a handful of users.--WMrapids (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know how you expect me to answer this question when I have quite literally spent the last few months of my life trying to show you how to do it correctly on other articles. I can't keep repeating myself, and we keep having to rehash discussions because you haven't read them. I don't know what else you think I can add, since to this point you haven't acknowledged my advice or heeded my examples of how to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I asked for a way forward on this particular topic, not mudslinging towards me. As I said, every RfC has been raised in good faith, especially this one with which I specifically asked for advice before opening it. So, sorry that I'm trying to find a consensus... WMrapids (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well if you ping me, wanting a specific response from me, on a page I'm already following, you're going to get my frank opinion about this proliferation of RFCs. The question of what definitions and terms are being used on this page is a real problem, that question wasn't addressed before this RFC went forward, and it's obvious from looking at the different countries mentioned in the article that it's a POV hodgepodge. I'll expand on that problem, which should have been addressed first, at the section where ReyHahn first raised that query. I've tried to show you elsewhere that rushed RFCs often lead to GIGO conclusions and ongoing dispute and I've tried to show you how to take the time to formulate a request for feedback to avoid that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I asked for a way forward on this particular topic, not mudslinging towards me. As I said, every RfC has been raised in good faith, especially this one with which I specifically asked for advice before opening it. So, sorry that I'm trying to find a consensus... WMrapids (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple reliable sources would be a good start. Not just one opinion. The Banner talk 09:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. And for existing sections that have limited sources, we could place the Template:More citations needed section for a determined amount of time before potential removal. WMrapids (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it works the other way round: first removal then a proposal for a new properly sourced text. The Banner talk 11:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. And for existing sections that have limited sources, we could place the Template:More citations needed section for a determined amount of time before potential removal. WMrapids (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think that work at the Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis article might be better, as it already has some of the content and the bar for inclusion is "lower", since its scope is narrower and said involvement is not limited to "regime change". --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response, I am partially in favor of an alternative RfC. Closing this one and working on a draft to comment on would be one way to go.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- In view of what I see has happened, following the pointer by SandyGeorgia above, I oppose the proposal of this "RfC" as a matter of principle and irrespective of any merits it might have. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment perhaps the proposer should withdraw the RfC - or someone else should SNOW close it - the general opinion seems to be that the RfC is premature. Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)