Talk:Covert United States foreign regime change actions/Archive 3

Neutrality, and an untrustworthy source
In the Iraq, 1968 section, that quote attributed to Archibald Roosevelt originally comes from a highly biased source. Roger Morris, the man who gives both the quote and the context through his interpretation, is notable for writing essays condemning Israel and US foreign policy. http://www.greeninstitute.net/publications/morris Some note to this effect should be included. TBSchemer (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An author's critique of the US and Israeli foreign policy does not in and of itself make the author "highly biased." Morris has been published many times by major academic presses and publications. More to the point, the article cites facts and quotes that Morris published, not his views.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not trying to judge this specific issue, I've been noticing, in some of the CIA articles, that Morris is often the only source. He may not appear as such in some links, but, when actually reading the articles, they quote Morris. I'm not suggesting Morris doesn't have legitimate credentials, but he does tend to appear in publications with a strong POV. If one took Morris and the "Black Book of Communism" out of some regions and time periods, there would be little sourcing left. I hope, for some of those periods and areas, to be able to find more sources, or, better yet, to find someone who knows south and SW Asia better than I do. I'm more familiar with SE Asia and Africa. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do feel free to add some additional sources. The Iraq 1968 coup has been extensively discussed in several sources besides the ones cited.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the thought, and have found some other sources, but I do not feel comfortable editing this specific article. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to chime in years after the fact, because this is instructive. The quote from Archibald Roosevelt is a complete fantasy invented by Morris. Roosevelt was active in the Middle East from 1949 to 1951, decades before the events in question. While Morris may have been thinking of a different Roosevelt, like Kermit, even he was active in the CIA only until the year 1958. Moreover, Archibald never revealed any CIA secrets to journalists, and was in fact renowned for his secrecy. Morris never had any contacts with any CIA officers, and he claims merely to have heard the quote from someone who heard the quote from someone who heard the quote. He writes for a fringe website slightly above blog quality in terms of editorial oversight. Notably, Morris explicitly states that the U.S. played no direct role in the 1968 coup; he alleges instead that the U.S. reached a secret agreement years before to offer support if the Ba'ath regained power. Presumably, he knows that there were no Americans in Iraq at the time, as they were all expelled after the 1967 war with Israel, thus making involvement a physical impossibility. When Reuters debunked Morris' claims in a 2003 report (I wonder why Morris made the claim in 2003....), they noted that "many experts, including foreign affairs scholars, say there is little to suggest U.S. involvement in Iraq in the sixties." Indeed, David Wise, the famed left-wing journalist who wrote numerous reports on the CIA, challenged the claim. The CIA called it "utterly ridiculous." ME analyst James Philips dismissed it as well. Given the fact that all of the CIA's records from the time are publicly available, there's no reason to take my word for it. If there was any evidence supporting this ludicrous conspiracy theory, someone would have pointed it out by now, as they did in the case of the 1963 coup in Iraq (that section is based on government reports). The fact is that the CIA made a contingency plan to kill Qasim in 1959-60, he was overthrown in a separate coup that the CIA "had nothing to do with" (Church report--save for the possibility of advance knowledge) in 1963, and that was the extent of U.S. involvement. The truth is quite the opposite of what Morris alleges: The 1963 coup was not a Ba'athist coup at all, but a coalition of Iraqi nationalists, army officers, Nasserists, Ba'athists, and socialists. The U.S.-backed President, Arif, was not a Ba'athist; the Ba'ath "staged a radical counter-coup six months later" (according to the PBS interview with CIA agent James Critchfield), and Arif purged the Ba'ath from the government in response (reportedly arresting Saddam Hussein in the process). Morris nearly says something true when he asserts that Arif's brother was not a Ba'athist, but in so doing he implies that Arif was. In reality, the Ba'ath's hostility to the U.S.-backed regime ran far deeper than dislike for Rahman Arif. To say that the U.S. played no role in the 1968 coup is not enough; the Johnson administration was vociferously opposed to the new regime it established--just as it opposed the Ba'athists in Syria--and Saddam had been trained by the KGB (he soon traveled to Moscow in 1972), not the CIA. The U.S. backed the second coup of 1963, when the Ba'ath were purged after a few months of limited power; it opposed Qasim and Saddam because they both threatened Kuwait. Qasim was a brutal communist dictator, and the CIA should have tried to restore the monarchy, as they did in Iran. The diplomatic support for the 1968 coup that Morris mentioned? Outright delusion. There were no diplomatic relations between Iraq and the U.S. whatever between 1967 and 1984; the U.S. responded to the coup by making all arms sales to Iraq formally illegal in a law passed by Congress and by arming the Kurds against al-Bakr from 1972-75. Never before or since has the U.S., or any other nation, ever done that to a "puppet" regime. It was under the Ba'ath that Iraq nationalized its oil fields, in June of 1972, if I recall correctly. As author Richard Dreyfuss accurately summarized: "Arab socialism spread to Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Libya in spite of U.S. attempts to prevent it." Nobody could have doubted, in the sixties and seventies, that Iraq was an enemy state linked to terrorism and that it was the most pro-Soviet state in the entire Arab world; likewise, no Iraqi would have confused Arif for a Ba'athist. Morris' deceitful rewrite of history preyed on the ignorance of people in 2003 not having any clue what he was talking about. But when you can find a half-dozen sources to the contrary with little effort, the burden is on the accuser to provide some evidence in support of their claims, and in this case not a shred of evidence was ever presented by anyone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at Morris' assertion that the Ba'ath were on Roosevelt's payroll, one can only gasp in disbelief at his dishonesty; as mentioned, Roosevelt left the CIA decades before the events under discussion. What does it say of Morris' following--people like NYCJosh--that he can say such things and count on his audience not checking his claims?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Turkey
We must add a section for Turkey. We all know that USA was helping the army during those coups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.65.239 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1960 Turkish coup d'état, 1971 Turkish coup d'état, and 1980 Turkish coup d'état should be added as the Turkish section.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * also 1997 military memorandum (Turkey) and E-memorandum (in 2007). Böri (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Al Qaeda
Much of this article is complete fantasy; not all of it, but certainly the claims about Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan are ludicrous and seriously lacking in proper citation--as are Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. It's obvious from reading it that there are a few cases in the article where the tone will switch dramatically as editors of different political viewpoints seek to get their POV reflected in the piece, although it’s generally far-left conspiracy theories based on blogs and Noam Chomsky. But I won't seek to totally reform things here because of how volatile it might become. I do, however, want to address one particular egregious lie that is relevant to US policy today--if not to change the article, then at least so that if a rational person should visit this page (God forbid), they might find this rebuttal.

My issue lies with the claim that al Qaeda was "allegedly" trained and funded by the CIA. This is "not true" since CIA money "went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers" (Jason Burke). Bin Laden was "outside of CIA eyesight" and there is "no record of any direct contact" (Steve Coll). There is "no evidence" of funding, "nor is there any evidence of CIA personnel meeting with bin Laden or anyone in his circle" (Peter Bergen). There is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen" (Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin). See Jason Burke, Al-Qaeda (Penguin, 2003), p59; Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden (Penguin, 2004), p87; Peter Bergen, The Osama bin Laden I Know (Free Press, 2006), pp60-1; Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World (Penguin, 2006), p579n48.

Now let's imagine that I wanted to establish that Iran, the most active state sponsor of terrorism, was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I could use this affidavit (http://information.iran911case.com/Exhibit_6.pdf), which has dozens of reliable sources asserting that the regime was involved in planning the attacks as well as training, funding, and transporting the hijackers. I could cite the testimony of countless witnesses (http://information.iran911case.com/Affidavit_index.pdf). I could point out that many French, Israeli, and American intelligence agents reached this same conclusion. I might add that Judge George Daniels in the Southern District Court in New York City agreed. And that federal courts have made similar accusations against Iran. And that the 9/11 Commission supports this idea. And that Iran has been accused of involvement in hundreds of such attacks on Westerners.

But I know that Wikipedia editors would never allow this. Just as they would never allow one to spread such fantastical lies about the KGB as are spread here about the CIA.

As one final point, I would like to add that the MeK are not a terrorist organization at all, but a secular and peaceful group of brave Iranian dissidents. Here is Clare M. Lopez, a former CIA agent for 20 years and a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, talking about the MeK (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/interview-with-clare-m-lopez-on-islam-and-the-enemies-of-america):

The State Department says that the MeK is on the list of terrorist organizations because the organization "was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970s" and because it maintains "the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond."

These claims are completely false but have been skillfully promoted by the Iranian intelligence service whose sophisticated influence operations have penetrated deeply into U.S. policymaking circles. The MeK initially was placed on the newly created Foreign Terrorist Organizations list by the Clinton administration in 1997, at the direct request of the incoming Khatami administration in Iran. This was a time when the United States once again was duped by Iranian influence operations into pursuing a policy of appeasement and negotiations with the Tehran regime—which promptly accelerated its nuclear weapons program, slaughtered intellectual dissidents, and crushed a student uprising. The Khatami administration’s revelation of which opposition group it feared the most should have provided insight and direction to U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran, but under the influence of Iranian intelligence operatives U.S. leadership was incapable of drawing the appropriate conclusions.

The assassinations of U.S. defense contractors and military personnel in the 1970s were conducted while the entire top leadership and most of the rank and file of the MeK were actually in the shah’s jails, making their participation a physical impossibility. MeK operations have always been directed at Iranian regimes that they saw as nondemocratic: first the shah’s autocratic monarchy; and, later, the Khomeinist dictatorship. In any case, the last offensive operation the MeK conducted against the Tehran regime was in 2001, more than a decade ago. The group relinquished its weapons to invading American forces in 2003 after its several camps in Iraq were bombed, unprovoked and without a single shot fired in self-defense, by coalition planes in fulfillment of a U.S. government pledge to the Iranian regime to do so in return for a promise from Tehran of noninterference in Iraq. A sixteen-month investigation by U.S. diplomatic and intelligence agencies followed, in which every one of the approximately 3,400 MeK members was personally investigated, DNA-tested, and found innocent of any crime or terrorist activity. Each person then signed a statement renouncing the use of violence. In 2004, the U.S. government therefore pledged protection to these now unarmed civilians under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

And, finally, the declared platform of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the umbrella opposition group to which the MeK belongs, asserts its commitment to establishment of a secular, free-market government in Iran that eschews terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and stands for defense of minorities, gender equality, pluralism, and tolerance.

As I have said, I would be very surprised if any of this influences the article itself, but let it be known to all that care to think that while most of Chomsky's lies are now accepted at face value by a majority of Americans and a good deal--particularly on Indochina and Latin America--are taught to students at public schools; anything Wikipedia has to say on the Middle East constitutes a spectacular propaganda hoax, and most journalists and intelligence experts in the world know its claims are false. The CIA did not aid al Qaeda, ever, and ending the Afghan War early did not cause 9/11. The Mek are not comparable to al Qaeda or Hezbollah.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing Problems--Seymour Hersh And Company
The elaborate claims about President Bush training Iranian terrorists in such places as Nevada rely entirely on the work of Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker. I'm not removing them, but this presents a problem given Hersh's record. For example, in The Sampson Option, Hersh quotes the delusional conman Ari Ben Menashe as a credible source for the claim that Israeli Prime Minister Begin "gave orders to target Soviet cities" with nuclear weapons while promising nukes to South Africa. Menashe got famous by claiming to have been with Bush 1 and the Iranians in Paris during the fictitious "October Surprise" conspiracy theory, on dates when Secret Service logs show Bush with a large number of appearances in the US. When Menashe's claim that Robert Maxwell collaborated with the Mossad came under fire, Hersh stated that a "private detective" had found phone logs confirming the truth of the claim. However, the "detective" turned out to be well-known British hoaxter Joe Flynn, who told the Sunday Times that he had deceived Hersh for money: "I am a conman" (Steven Emerson, "The Man Behind The October Surprise Lie," Wall Street Journal, November 27, 1991). When writing a book on JFK, Hersh fell for a stack of phoney documents peddled by one Lawrence S. Cusack, who claimed to have proof that Kennedy was tied to mobster Sam Giancana and paid off Marilyn Monroe to keep quiet about their affair. Cusack was brought to trial for defrauding "investors" in these documents; Hersh was asked about his claim that he had "independently confirmed some of the most interesting things in the papers." Hersh admitted that he had lied: "Here is where I absolutely misstated things" (New York Times, May 3, 1999). Hersh cannot be trusted. He cites Yuval Ne'eman as having told him that Israel went on nuclear alert twice in 1973; Rael Jean Isaac interviewed Ne'eman, who said that he had mentioned to Hersh that the United States went on nuclear alert twice, based on public sources. When Hersh declared that nuclear blackmail by Israel forced the famed American airlift of 1973, President Nixon responded: "The story has no foundation whatever....I have refused to read any of Seymour Hersh's books or articles because I consider him to be totally unreliable" (letter from Richard M. Nixon to Russ Braley of January 22, 1992). But the lowest point of his career is surely his 1986 The Target Is Destroyed, in which Hersh argues that the civilian Korean airliner KAL 007 was shot down by the Soviets as an honest mistake. In 1991, Izvestiya interviewed Lt. Col. Gennadi Osipovich, the man who shot down the plane; he indignantly denied having made a mistake and recounted how he had been fortified with vodka before giving a false account of the event on Soviet TV. Then there were his rantings about a US-Israeli plan to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal; Bush 2, you might recall, had to reassure Musharraf that "Seymour Hersh is a liar." Hersh is subjected to input from a lowly fact-checker at the New Yorker, but in truth the fact-checker has little ability to curtail their star journalist--particularly because all of Hersh's sources are anonymous. Case in point: Michael Rubin got a call from the fact-checker when he worked at the Office of Special Plans, and made a number of corrections, including on matters of simple fact. None were incorporated into the article (Michael Rubin, "Web of Conspiracies," National Review Online, May 18, 2004). Where were the fact-checkers when Hersh wrote, in 2001, that the US used 16 AC-130 planes to raid a compound in which Mullah Omar was suspected of hiding? The US only has 21 of these large, heavily armed planes; when John Miller asked Hersh about it, Hersh said he might have "misheard" (John Miller, "Sly Sy," 32-33). Hersh even wrote that Predator drones cost $40 million when the real number is $2.5 million; as Michael Ledeen has observed, many of his paragraphs are not logically consistent. It's yellow journalism. Hersh alone doesn't cut the mustard.
 * This article has improved due to my removal of certain conspiracy theories. For example, I eliminated reference to a blog called "The Progressive South Asia Exchange Net," which has zero credibility as a reliable source, contradicts dozens of reliable sources, and "claims to cite" (what kind of a phrase is this?) an interview in a foreign-language publication that I can find no record of having been published in that publication or of being translated into English. Amazingly, The Real News (self-published news for radicals on the internet) felt compelled to hound the alleged interviewee about the blog, and he predictably laughed it off and acted puzzled by the accusations it contained. No way was that blog sufficient evidence for anything. However, this article still needs work, and will continue to be a place exploited as a soapbox.
 * To illustrate the way by which lies are promulgated on the internet, let's examine a conspiracy theory promoted by official Iranian government propaganda: That Jimmy Carter "green-lit" the Iraqi invasion of Iran. You might not know this, but this claim was cited on both the Iran-Iraq War article and the Covert US regime change article. It was removed in 2009 from the former, with one editor calling it "outrageously POV and lacking any reliable support." The citation was to a socialist website called ZNet, which in turn quoted an even more obscure site called Consortium News, which is essentially a blog. CN relied on a statement by the delusional fraud Robert Parry. Parry's claim to have found "an X-file" in "a remote Capitol Hill storage room" was utterly ridiculous. You might like to know that Parry has a long history of making such claims. "Robert Parry revealed on his investigative news website Consortium News that he had recently discovered, in an abandoned Capitol Hill bathroom in which Lee Hamilton's October Surprise Committee stored files, a Russian report that had been hand-delivered to the US Embassy in 1993 confirming that the October Surprise actually did occur." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy_theory#The_Consortium_News He claims to have broken into Capitol Hill dozens of times, finding the secret documents the MSM doesn't want you to know about! It sure is amazing that only he can find all of these incredible pieces of evidence with ease! Amazing that such documents had been left sitting on a bathroom floor for decades! Amazing that he keeps breaking into government buildings and never gets stopped! Amazing that all of the "documents" support his predetermined theories to a "T"! Nevertheless, his rantings remained here until I removed them.
 * Folks, let's be careful to not invent false realities that only exist in our minds. OK?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Syria
Why there is no Syria?--98.196.233.8 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet Another Sourcing Problem

 * What Wikipedia says: "According to this former CIA official, the civilian targets included a movie theater and a bombing of a school bus and schoolchildren were killed."
 * What the cited source actually says: "The Iraqi government at the time claimed that the bombs, including one it said exploded in a movie theater, resulted in many civilian casualties. But whether the bombings actually killed any civilians could not be confirmed because, as a former C.I.A. official said, the United States had no significant intelligence sources in Iraq then. One former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was based in the region, Robert Baer, recalled that a bombing during that period "blew up a school bus; schoolchildren were killed." Mr. Baer, a critic of the Iraq war, said he did not recall which resistance group might have set off that bomb."
 * This article says that the CIA orchestrated the bomb campaign. But the source cited does not support that interpretation. Therefore, I will have to edit this section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the section on Iraq in the 1970s belong here?
I am skeptical that the section on Iraq in the 1970s belongs in this article. The United States and Iran did support the Kurdish leader Barzani in his rebellion against the Baathist regime, however, Barzani's objectives appear to be autonomy or independence rather than regime change. I've examined a number of sources and I don't see anything that suggests that American aims in aiding Barzani were regime change, as opposed to creating a thorn in the side of the Iraqi forces. Kissinger, who is described as the architect of American covert assistance to the Kurds, writes that the US was not interested in permanently dividing Iraq, but only in keeping the Iraqi military tied down and giving the Kurds enough resources to negotiate with Baghdad (Years of Renewal pages 585-590). Given that this was not a "regime change" action, I see no basis for including it in this article.GabrielF (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You might be completely correct. There's no clear criteria as to what constitutes a "regime change action", so depending on interpretation, there are several sections here that are dubious. In this case, the CIA did destabilize the government, but you're right--their goal was not principally to remove the regime so much as to harass it. I have tried to expand and elaborate on many sections in this article, which started out in 2007-8 as a completely incoherent POV mess, but I am willing to remove this one.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy
I would like to inquire about what facts in this article are disputed. For the most part, I believe it is very neutral for an article that can easily be used as a soapbox. I don't believe any facts here are disputed. Obviously, there are a few trouble spots where there are not enough sources, but this works both in favor of and against the U.S. government position (clearly, the section on Iran under Bush has serious issues, but then so does the section on Angola; both the Phillipines and Argentina are questionable). I would challenge the factual accuracy tag without specific examples.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Syria 1949
I'm concerned about the phrasing of the following section: Syria became an independent republic in 1946, but the March 1949 Syrian coup d'état ended the initial civilian government. This coup was, according to declassified records and statements by former CIA agents, sponsored by the United States CIA. According to then former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland, the coup was carried out in order to obtain Syrian ratification of the TAPLINE oil pipeline.[11][12][13][14][15] Colonel Husni al-Za'im, who came to power in this, the first military coup in the history of Syria, ordered elections (in which he was the only candidate for president[16]) and the drafting of a new constitution, but was himself overthrown after only four and a half months in power.[17] I've reviewed the sources: The Douglas Little article "Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945-1958" seems to be the most detailed of the cited sources. The book Notes from the Minefield bases its account on this source. The Joseph Massad article is an opinion piece that says very little. The Columbia BA Thesis does not appear to mention CIA involvement at all. I can't access the sources for the book "Castles Made of Sand". Little tells us that Stephen Meade, officially an assistant military attache, but in actuality a CIA operative, met at least six times with Za'im prior to the coup. Little indicates that they planned the coup together and that Za'im requested American money and operatives. It isn't known whether funding or personnel were actually provided. (see Castles Made of Sand) Za'im launched the coup, but there was some hesitation from Washington which waited a month to recognize the regime. Given this description, it seems that Massad's claim that: "It was the United States that destroyed Syrian democracy in 1949 when the CIA sponsored the first coup d’état in the country ending democratic rule." is overwrought. Instead of saying that the CIA sponsored the coup, we should say that CIA operatives met with Za'im on a number of occasions and helped him plan the coup, that Za'im requested American funding or personnel to assist him, but that it is unknown whether such tangible support was provided. GabrielF (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means, change the description if it is inaccurate. I had nothing to do with that section, and your summary sounds more like what I'd expect. But I don't know enough about this to change it. You can see under my "Sourcing Problems" sections that there were much more egregious distortions here before (like a blog being used to justify the claim that a delusional conman broke into a government building and found "an X-file" proving that Jimmy Carter encouraged Iraq to invade Iran in 1980).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution in rewriting the section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dubious Claims
I put a dubious tag next to claims that a couple Iranian groups are U.S. "proxies" and are "protected" by the U.S. in some way.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

New Sections
I added sections for Afghanistan in 2001 and Libya in 2011.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And Iraq in 2002.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ghana
This section appears to list a large number of reputable sources, but in practice it fails utterly. To wit: Citation 55 provides access to government documents transcribing the conversations of U.S. officials on the subject of African policy in the sixties. Presumably, these discussions should mention the CIA's alleged coup in Ghana. But the source failed to pass my attempts at verification. In fact, the country "Ghana" is not even mentioned one time anywhere in the citation provided, which raises questions about if it was even a major U.S. concern at the time--much less the subject of a "covert foreign regime change action". Citation 56 is the same thing--literally. Although the title used in the references section is different, it links to the same page, and thus the same content (content wholly unrelated to Ghana). Both citation 57 and citation 58 claim to link to State Department documents; however, neither do in reality. 57 and 58 instead link to a site of dubious veracity called "Ghana Web," which is essentially a blog. This blog makes sweeping assumptions based on little evidence and has poor grammar, to boot:

"Four days after Nkrumah's overthrow, the new CIA Director presents a parting gift to McGeorge Bundy retiring as President Johnson's National Security advisor. " Iam particularly pleased to send you a favourable report on your last day". The favourable report was that their two year sustained clandistined activities to unseat the great Pan Africanist regime in Ghana had been rewarding."

That such a source stood for many years on Wikipedia is one of the remaining vestiges of this page’s beginning as a useless collection of rambling, nonsensical conspiracy theories.

58 is basically an editorial on Ghana Web praising the Nkrumah dictatorship and rambling on about all sorts of unrelated conspiracy theories, ultimately descending into George W. Bush-hatred. Clearly, none of these citations are reputable sources valid for use on Wikipedia, or reliable in any sense. From what I gather, the CIA may have created an intelligence report concluding that there was a good probability that Nkrumah would be overthrown; but there is no evidence it played any role in the coup and many of these sources don't even allege that it did. Moreover, I have to question the integrity of the editor that used all of these misleading sources. Therefore, I will remove the section entirely.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Significant Deletions of Content in the Islamic Republic of Iran Section
Geez, what an absolute mess. Tons of copied-and-pasted content from newspapers, and there were the aforementioned issues with tone and neutrality. Some sentences were even copied-and-pasted multiple times. In truth, Hersh's ramblings fall under the category of fringe viewpoints, which are against Wikipedia policy even though plenty of editors fail to adhere to this rule. I have written on this page before about the issue, but since no effort has been made to resolve it, I have removed objectionable material. The quotes from Feith's book do not mention Iran, and using them here is not only original research, but also pure speculation. No evidence was provided that the policy began in 2001. I removed references to sanctions and "planned" military actions, because they are beyond the scope of this article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Single-handedly deleting large chunks of carefully and fully footnoted material is unhelpful, and irresponsible. If you have a specific objection to "tone" for any given sentence, feel free to share it here. If you want to suggest changes, let's see them. Deleting footnoted, relevant material that presents what respected publications state is unacceptable! It's curious that in the same breath that you accuse of slavish following of sources (like The New Yorker magazine, a well established publication of many decades) you criticize this section's content for its tone and lack of neutrality To give just one further example, without any evidence or source whatsoever, you accuse a feature investigative article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hirscs, one of America's most respected investigative reporters of "conspiracy theory" for presenting his months' long findings.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&oldid=495080897#Iran_2001-present President George W. Bush secretly authorized the CIA to undertake black operations against Iran in an effort to topple the Iranian government. The Black Ops include a U.S. propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize the government, and disrupting the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and its international financial transactions.[142] The book War and Decision written by Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith quotes a high level government policy memorandum written after September 11, 2001, stating that the United States should "[c]apitalize on our strong suit, which is not finding a few hundred terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, but in the vastness of our military and humanitarian resources, which can strengthen the opposition forces in terrorist-supporting states."[143] The memorandum outlined a list of military actions to be undertaken against some of these states. Undersecretary Feith and Gen. Wesley Clark confirmed that Iran is on this list. An article in the New York Times in 2005 said that the Bush administration was expanding efforts to influence Iran's internal politics with aid for opposition and pro-democracy groups abroad and longer broadcasts criticizing the Iranian government. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns said the administration was "taking a page from the playbook" on Ukraine and Georgia. Unnamed administration officials were reported as saying the State Department was also studying dozens of proposals for spending $3 million in the coming year "for the benefit of Iranians living inside Iran" including broadcast activities, Internet programs and "working with people inside Iran" on advancing political activities there.[144] In 2006, the United States congress passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act which directed $10 million towards groups opposed to the Iranian Government. In 2007, ABC news reported that U.S. president George W. Bush had authorized a $400 million CIA covert operation to destabilize Iran.[145] Jundullah militants ABC News and The Daily Telegraph reported, citing U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources, that U.S. officials have been secretly encouraging and advising a Pakistani Balochi militant group named Jundullah that is responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran.[142] The Jundullah militants "stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera", This militant group is led by a youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, sometimes known as "Regi." The U.S. provides no direct funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "presidential finding" as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to Abd el Malik Regi through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Persian Gulf states. A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false", and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group.[146] Regi and Jundullah are also suspected of being associated with al Qaida, a charge that the group has denied. Jundullah "is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists," according to Professor Vali Nasr, "They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture."[147] Regi "used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist", said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members. "Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera", Debat said. Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.[146] Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan

Another claimed U.S. proxy[dubious – discuss] inside Iran has been the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK). The New Yorker reported in November 2006 that a U.S. government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership leaked the news of secret US support for PEJAK for operations inside Iran, stating that the group had been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.".[148] People's Mujahedin of Iran

People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran سازمان مجاهدين خلق ايران Sāzmān-e Mojāhedin-e Khalq-e Irān Another terrorist group allegedly protected[dubious – discuss] by the United States government that operates out of Iraq is the People's Mujahedin of Iran, PMOI, known also as the Mujahedeen-e Khalq or MEK. PMOI is dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian regime and is accused of orchestrating a series of bombings inside Iran, including one attack that left the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, partially paralyzed.[149][150] Beginning in 2005, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) of the United States government trained MEK militants at a secret military facility in Nevada in such opertations as intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics, according to an investigative report by the New Yorker magazine.[151] Since 1997, the U.S. has listed the PMOI as a terrorist organization. "They're terrorists only when we consider them terrorists. They might be terrorists in everybody else's books ... It was a strange group of people and the leadership was extremely cruel and extremely vicious." said Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.[149]


 * This was brought up multiple times here, and another editor added a dubious tag to claims that various groups were "US proxies". The claim that the MEK was "protected" by the US in some unspecified way was another example of weasel words. These claims were removed long ago from another page (Special Activities Division, if I remember correctly) as WP:FRINGE. Note that you did not defend the section when I posted this almost two months ago, or at earlier points when it was challenged.
 * I previously spelled out my objections to Hersh in detail: For example, in The Sampson Option, Hersh quotes the delusional conman Ari Ben Menashe as a credible source for the claim that Israeli Prime Minister Begin "gave orders to target Soviet cities" with nuclear weapons while promising nukes to South Africa. Menashe got famous by claiming to have been with Bush 1 and the Iranians in Paris during the fictitious "October Surprise" conspiracy theory, on dates when Secret Service logs show Bush with a large number of appearances in the US. When Menashe's claim that Robert Maxwell collaborated with the Mossad came under fire, Hersh stated that a "private detective" had found phone logs confirming the truth of the claim. However, the "detective" turned out to be well-known British hoaxter Joe Flynn, who told the Sunday Times that he had deceived Hersh for money: "I am a conman" (Steven Emerson, "The Man Behind The October Surprise Lie," Wall Street Journal, November 27, 1991). When writing a book on JFK, Hersh fell for a stack of phoney documents peddled by one Lawrence S. Cusack, who claimed to have proof that Kennedy was tied to mobster Sam Giancana and paid off Marilyn Monroe to keep quiet about their affair. Cusack was brought to trial for defrauding "investors" in these documents; Hersh was asked about his claim that he had "independently confirmed some of the most interesting things in the papers." Hersh admitted that he had lied: "Here is where I absolutely misstated things" (New York Times, May 3, 1999). Hersh cannot be trusted for accurate quotes. He cites Yuval Ne'eman as having told him that Israel went on nuclear alert twice in 1973; Rael Jean Isaac interviewed Ne'eman, who said that he had mentioned to Hersh that the United States went on nuclear alert twice, based on public sources. When Hersh declared that nuclear blackmail by Israel forced the famed American airlift of 1973, President Nixon responded: "The story has no foundation whatever....I have refused to read any of Seymour Hersh's books or articles because I consider him to be totally unreliable" (letter from Richard M. Nixon to Russ Braley of January 22, 1992). But the lowest point of Hersh's career is surely his 1986 The Target Is Destroyed, in which he argues that the civilian Korean airliner KAL 007 was shot down by the Soviets as an honest mistake. In 1991, Izvestiya interviewed Lt. Col. Gennadi Osipovich, the man who shot down the plane; he indignantly denied having made a mistake and recounted how he had been fortified with vodka before giving a false account of the event on Soviet TV. Then there were his rantings about a US-Israeli plan to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal; Bush 2, you might recall, had to reassure Musharraf that "Seymour Hersh is a liar." Hersh is subjected to input from a lowly fact-checker at The New Yorker, but in truth the fact-checker has little ability to curtail their star journalist--particularly because all of Hersh's sources are anonymous. Case in point: Michael Rubin got a call from the fact-checker when he worked at the Office of Special Plans, and made a number of corrections, including on matters of simple fact. None were incorporated into the article (Michael Rubin, "Web of Conspiracies," National Review Online, May 18, 2004). Where were the fact-checkers when Hersh wrote, in 2001, that the US used 16 AC-130 planes to raid a compound in which Mullah Omar was suspected of hiding? The US only has 21 of these large, heavily armed planes; when John Miller asked Hersh about it, Hersh said he might have "misheard" (John Miller, "Sly Sy," 32-33). Hersh even wrote that Predator drones cost $40 million when the real number is $2.5 million.
 * The other sources can be used, and already a great deal of the excessive copying and pasting had been trimmed (and it’s not curious that slavishly relying on a single source may result in bias). But it is important to address dubious tags and discussions. The amount of detail provided here was excessive and a violation of WP:UNDUE. There are already plenty of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems apparent on the page. The section should not read like a court document, with large walls of text and quotations. As a general point, please remember that editorials cannot be used for "statements of fact" according to WP:RS, and that this page has been abused as a WP:SOAPBOX in the past. Some text can surely be added to this section. But I also feel that if you would rather discuss it at length, it would be better to devote an entire article to the subject, where the many claims can be subjected to scrutiny and elaborated on in specific detail. This article should simply provide an overview.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, another issue that emerged was the possibility of out of date information. The section title claimed "2001-present", but no source was cited for covert operations in 2001, nor for the Obama administration. Perhaps a separate article could provide a timeline for these allegations.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the concept of original research? Here's an example: "The book War and Decision written by Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith quotes a high level government policy memorandum written after September 11, 2001, stating that the United States should "[c]apitalize on our strong suit, which is not finding a few hundred terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, but in the vastness of our military and humanitarian resources, which can strengthen the opposition forces in terrorist-supporting states."" As I mentioned two months ago, this quote cannot be used to state that the US began covert operations in Iran in 2001. That is an editor's interpretation. I wish that you had not responded in such a hostile tone, while spelling Hersh's name wrong and failing to address the concerns I mentioned. The references to sanctions and "planned" military actions are irrelevant here. Aren't they?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This story (formerly cited in the article) has nothing whatsoever to do with regime change. All it mentions is that the US military protects MeK members in Iraq, not that the CIA is helping them try to overthrow the government (that's original research). This isn't nearly as sinister as it appears, according to former CIA agent Clare M. Lopez: "The assassinations of U.S. defense contractors and military personnel in the 1970s were conducted while the entire top leadership and most of the rank and file of the MeK were actually in the shah’s jails, making their participation a physical impossibility. MeK operations have always been directed at Iranian regimes that they saw as nondemocratic: first the shah’s autocratic monarchy; and, later, the Khomeinist dictatorship. In any case, the last offensive operation the MeK conducted against the Tehran regime was in 2001, more than a decade ago. The group relinquished its weapons to invading American forces in 2003 after its several camps in Iraq were bombed, unprovoked and without a single shot fired in self-defense, by coalition planes in fulfillment of a U.S. government pledge to the Iranian regime to do so in return for a promise from Tehran of noninterference in Iraq. A sixteen-month investigation by U.S. diplomatic and intelligence agencies followed, in which every one of the approximately 3,400 MeK members was personally investigated, DNA-tested, and found innocent of any crime or terrorist activity. Each person then signed a statement renouncing the use of violence. In 2004, the U.S. government therefore pledged protection to these now unarmed civilians under the Fourth Geneva Convention." The PMOI's website was also used as a source, in violation of Wikipedia policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even the ABC news blog isn't very helpful. It claims only that the US encouraged Pakistan to fund Jundullah. It repeatedly states that the US provided no direct support or funding, although "an Iranian TV broadcast" claimed that the CIA funded and/or trained them. I'm not sure that allegedly encouraging Pakistan to fund Jundullah constitutes an attempt at regime change, or that the Iranian government statements are reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's go through the sources one by one. Each FN number refers to the FN number before the deletion (reflected in the above-provided link to the old version).

1. FN 142. Supports the sentence that "The Black Ops include a U.S. propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize the government, and disrupting the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and its international financial transactions." No reason to remove this. Provides important details of the US operations to the reader.

2. FN 143. The cite is to a news source written by an investigative journalist, not the Feith's book. Do you understand the difference between a RS that fully supports a statement (permissible) and OR (impermissible)? The cited source fully supports the connection of the Rumsfeld plan to Iran, and explains how.

3. FN 144. Supports the US support to influence internal Iranian politics and the aid of internal opposition groups. This should be made explicit to give the reader a clearer view of what is taking place on the ground.

Jundullah

4. FN 142 (I don't know why it's numbered 142 again, this is the Daily Telegraph source). States Bush authorized the CIA... and that "the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan".

5. FN 146. ABC News. Discusses the Regi connection, etc. to Jundullah. Provides context about this shadowy group with which most Western readers are unfamiliar.

6. FN 147. New Yorker. Your critique of the work of Sy Hirsch is OR and doesn't belong here (on the Talk pg or on WP, generally). If you feel you have something important to say on the subject of the credibility of the New Yorker magazine or Seymour Hirsch, feel free to get it published in a RS publication and then come back. In the meantime, WP relies on RS per WP rules. If you have a source that contradicts any of what is published in the New Yorker, we can consider adding it to highlight the controversy. I'll stop here to give everyone a chance to comment. --NYCJosh (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My critique of Hersh is indeed irrelevant, but I provided it because you specifically requested "evidence" to justify the claim that he is controversial. There is, however, no "controversy" about Hersh's work on Iran: It's nearly universally ignored. Giving it massive attention here is a violation of WP:UNDUE. As for your other points: I think international sanctions are beyond the scope of this article (as I've said multiple times without any response from you). Gareth Porter's article on Feith's book doesn't mention CIA efforts to overthrow the Iranian government in 2001, so, again, it is OR to claim that such efforts began in 2001 based on the source provided. Porter's article actually claims that Bush was initially opposed to Rumsfeld's suggestions. Furthermore, an exceptional claim requires exceptional evidence. The article also used to say this:

"The memorandum outlined a list of military actions to be undertaken against some of these states. Undersecretary Feith and Gen. Wesley Clark confirmed that Iran is on this list."
 * Overt military actions are beyond the scope of this article, as are "planned" military actions, but this quote is also inappropriate because the cited source implies that Iran was not one of the targets for military intervention (mentioning military actions "planned" against other countries muddles the issue). Porter's article does support the notion that certain US officials began considering covert actions against Iran in 2001, but it cannot be used to claim that such operations actually began in 2001. With regard to citation 144, it is now citation 152 and it has not been altered in any way, so I'm not sure why you mention it "should be made explicit to give the reader a clearer view of what is taking place on the ground". All that text is still there. 146 doesn't support the claim of direct CIA aid to Jundullah, it merely gives background on the group and mentions Pakistani support. I felt this background was excessive detail for an article that gives a broad summary of numerous US actions. I see that 142 does claim the CIA provided such support, so that can be added (and it was 142 again because the source was used twice). 142 is now cite 151; feel free to add that detail from the source. You act as if I removed the statement "The Black Ops include a U.S. propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize the government, and disrupting the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and its international financial transactions"; whereas I just replaced it with "President George W. Bush authorized the CIA to undertake black operations against Iran in an effort to destabilize the Iranian government". I would support using what is now cite 151 to claim that there are allegations of direct CIA aid to Jundullah; if you want to add Porter for the assertion that the US began considering covert actions in 2001, feel free to do so. Hersh should be mentioned briefly, if at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as you can see here and here, I've added some 1,400 characters to the section. If you have additional suggestions, then feel free to propose them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictures
I've added lots of pictures to the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Greece, 1967
I want to call attention to the following sentence in the Greece 1967 section:
 * It is, however, likely that the U.S. military was informed of the coup a few days in advance by Greek liaison officers.

The source cited, a book review in the Journal of Modern Greek Studies says no such thing. Here's what it says about American knowledge of the coup: In this crisis, U. S. officials shuttled between the contending forces relaying messages, counseling moderation on both sides, suggesting compromise scenarios, and considering and rejecting a CIA plan for a secret intervention to weaken Andreas and the left wing of the Center Union party (279-282). They debated what to do in the event of a royal coup, while urging the king to avoid "extra-constitutional" actions. Ultimately, the Americans concluded that a Center Union victory would not undermine the Greek constitution or deliver the country over to the communists (and Andreas). On 20 April, Deputy Assistant Secretary Stewart Rockwell cabled instructions to the embassy to press the wavering king to accept the popular will and keep the army in its barracks (310-311). On 21 April, the Americans awoke to discover that they had misread the threat to democracy in Greece. They had plenty of company. The king and his senior officers had coddled the coup-plotters for years. The colonels were able to carry out their own plans without the knowledge of their superiors. The Americans were well informed of the coup-makers' activities through early 1967, but like Greek general officers they assumed that the colonels were loyal to senior authority and would act only on orders from the palace (256-257). I also checked Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. Weiner says:
 * "Yet the colonels had taken the CIA by surprise: "The only time I saw Helms really angry was when the Greek colonels' coup took place in 1967," said the veteran analyst and current-intelligence chief Dick Lehman. "The Greek generals had been planning a coup against the elected government, a plan we knew all about and was not yet ripe. But a group of colonels had trumped their ace and acted without warning..." Lehman... "tried to cool Helms off by pointing out that this was a different coup, which we had no line on. This was a new thought" (Page 383)

I'd like to do one of the following: You might want to also bring this up on Greek military junta of 1967–1974.75.149.79.49 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove the Greece section. Since this coup was not an American "foreign regime change action", it isn't appropriate in this article.
 * 2) Failing that, replace the last sentence of the paragraph with a sentence specifying that the American government knew about but did not approve of a separate plot by Greek generals but were taken completely by surprise by the colonels' plot. GabrielF (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sandinista
This piece that I removed once but has been put back is a bit one sided and also the link goes to a paywall page for the New York Times so that I cannot see it r anything else in the article,it is un sourced as far as I can see,I google it and all that comes up is wikipedia.So it either needs a new source or to be removed. The piece itself is supposedly interviews with real Nicaraguans conducted by the NYT,they have 3 negative views and 1 semi positive view of the government. First off this is done by an American newspaper that has been reporting negatively about the Sadinistan government for 10 years and now we are supposed to believe that they have done a neutral article on them? Anyway it is un sourced, like it removed or sourced to something I can see really.Zrdragon12 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see Verifiability:
 * "Verifiability in this context means that other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries."
 * There is no requirement that a source be freely available online. GabrielF (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but it seems a bit strange that the NYT went to Nicaragua and interviewed 4 people but could not get one total positive view of the government. It seems even more strange because in the 1990 election when they went there even though the Sandinista lost they still gained 41% of the vote but the NYT could not find even one of their supporters to give a positive view of them. That piece just stinks to high heaven of American propaganda.Anyway if that is the rules that means I can post up absolutely anything and just make sure the source is not seen.Zrdragon12 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the annexation of Hawaii really belong?
Does the annexation of Hawaii really belong in this article? I don't know much about this period, but from my reading it doesn't appear that this was a covert act by the United States. There was covert plotting by Americans, but I don't see that this plotting was instigated by the US Government. From the wikipedia article it appears that the US government's action - landing marines, was perfectly overt. Is there a source that identifies this as a covert US action? GabrielF (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you could be right there. The covert coup was carried out by American,European settlers.Zrdragon12 (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky quote as Reliable source?
I added a quote from Noam Chomsky about the American involvement in Nicaragua

"Suppose that some power of unimaginable strength were to threaten to reduce the United States to the level of Ethiopia unless we voted for its candidates, demonstrating that the threat was real. Suppose that we refused, and the threat was then carried out, the country brought to its knees, the economy wrecked and millions killed. Suppose, finally, that the threat were repeated, loud and clear, at the time of the next scheduled elections. Under such conditions, only the most extreme hypocrite would speak of a free election. Furthermore, it is likely that close to 100% of the population would succumb.

On editor has reverted because he claims that Chomsky editorial comment is not a very reliable source. I would disagree, he goes on to say that no editorials can be used as factual statements. What Chomsky states is actually true though as attested to by many other authors on the subject and I will prove that. Thoughts?Zrdragon12 (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's completely untrue, but since we already devote almost all of the space to such criticism, it's also unneccessary. Chomsky probably qualifies as a WP:FRINGE source, as his work is by definition outside of the mainstream.  Since we already have comments about international condemnation, Contra atrocities, the 1984 elections supposedly being a sincere attempt at democratic rule, and the court ruling against the US--and since you watered down the only defense of US policy except for the official US justification--it's hard to see what Chomsky's blockquote adds to this page.  Be careful about WP:TRUTH and WP:SYNTH.  By the way, you cited the quote to a newspaper, but now you mention a "book".  Which is it?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not completely untrue, anybody who knows the history of American involvement in Nicaragua knows it is a fact.The piece I quoted is reference from a newspaper but also appears in someones elses book, I can link to that if that would please but do not worry as I will prove it all true in this section,the evidence is outstanding,so much of it to pick from.Zrdragon12 (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. Your original research and synthesis is wholly irrelevant.  Do you want me to start quoting right-wing editorials?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will bother and you will be proven wrong because you are just denying real history. The Americans government financed,trained and even set up the Contras,they tried to discredit the 1984 elections by pulling out some rightwing parties but they failed and they funded the 1990 elections of the rightwing with 30-40 million dollars. Their army(Contras terrorized Nicaragua) and their aim was to bring down the elected government of that country. This is what Chomsky is stating and it is all true.Zrdragon12 (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are your concerns related to the article, or to me? If you want to have a political debate, we can do that elsewhere.  All of the claims you just mentioned are in the article, so why would we need Chomsky to repeat them?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously my concerns are with the article, I am not concerned about you in the slightest.All the claims I just mentioned are not in the article.This argument is about the reliability of Chomsky,a best selling author of many years and political commentator who has appeared on everything from the BBC to Israeli news channels and you think he is unreliable but have failed to prove such.Zrdragon12 (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"U.S. played a decisive role in financing, training, arming, and advising the contras, and the contras only became capable of carrying out significant military operations as a result of this support.

In 1986 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors.

It has been argued that "probably a key factor in preventing the 1984 elections from establishing liberal democratic rule was the United States' policy toward Nicaragua." The Reagan administration was divided over whether the rightwing coalition Coordinadora Democrática Nicaragüense participate in the elections or not, which "only complicated the efforts of the Coordinadora to develop a coherent electoral strategy." Ultimately the US administration's public and private support for non-participation allowed those members of the Coordinadora who favoured a boycott to gain the upper hand."
 * What's missing?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You do have a very real problem staying on track of what a discussion is about. The debate here is if Chomsky is a reliable source,your excuse for excluding him is that he is not,remember? You have failed to prove he is not. I have proven that he is as his record speaks for its self. He has appeared on God knows how many political discussions,news programs, been publish in so many newspapers,sold tens of millions of books on politics,etc etc.Zrdragon12 (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black.
 * Why do you think Chomsky keeps getting tagged at mass killings under capitalist regimes?
 * Even if Chomsky were a valid source, there are lots of perfectly reliable sources we could endlessly add to every article. However, we must present mainstream views and give differing opinions due weight.  Since you concede that Chomsky's blockquote adds no factual information to this article, it should not be included.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not conceded anything,you just made that up which is a very poor show.Not sure what you mean "if Chomsky were a valid source" he is, I have proven that. He is one of the most quoted people on this planet. You have still failed to prove he is not a valid source.I have come to the conclusion that all your arguments consist of changing the subject, you have done it here and elsewhere.If you cannot keep on track then do not bother to comment. It is a mainstream view that th American government started a war in Nicaragua to overthrow the government,everyone knows that much as a factZrdragon12 (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked you if there was anything in Chomsky's polemical quote not in the article; you responded that it was irrelevant since Chomsky is a RS, a contention which you manifestly have not "proven" through repetition. Your new argument is:  "th [sic] American government started a war in Nicaragua to overthrow the government,everyone knows that much as a fact."  True, as the article says:  "From 1981-90, the CIA attempted to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua."  Since there's no encyclopedic value in the quote, we'll leave it out.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you are still dodging the point. No point of any further discussion with you about anything as you cannot stick to the subject at all. You wander off trying to change it because you cannot prove anything. I have seen these weak techniques all over the Internet. btw, Who is "we"? You are speaking for yourself, no one else.Zrdragon12 (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So we now have more support for Chomsky being a reliable source but It seems that User:TheTimesAreAChanging has moved the wiki editor JTBX comment to the soapbox. Anyway 2-1 so far.Zrdragon12 (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Would like to jump in here, Chomsky is not a fringe source, because he is backed by declassified documents and reliable journals etc. He simply quotes the mainstream press and takes it to account. Now, it appears that perhaps if I am not being too cynical, TimesAreAChanging has an agenda, or is mistakenly trying to "balance POV". Real events hardly have a POV, while it is useful to include them in the article, you cannot have a balanced POV of Nazis were trying to kill terrorists etc, everyone knows they were exterminating Jews, the POV of Holocaust denial can still be added but the evidence against it is overwhelming. Similarly, we know for a fact that US wars in Vietnam killed about 2 million Vietnamese and 600,000 Cambodians, during the Korean War about 100,000 South Koreans died under the US adminstered Southern regime, etc etc support of dictators, it goes on. Those are not hidden "POVS" etc, they are facts. BUT, we can of course include mainstream journals and articles highlighting peoples opinions of them. So for example, when the US supported the Indonesian killings, thats a fact, but the POV is "A Gleam of Light in Asia" - the NYTimes article. Chomsky POV is that these are horrible etc, but to be honest thats hardly a POV, unless you are morally reprehensible. --JTBX (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How exactly you could attribute three times all of the deaths caused by all sides in the entire Cambodian civil war--and all of the deaths in the entire Vietnamese civil war--solely to the US (when the communists did most of the killing!) absolutely boggles the mind. Regardless, the Korean and Vietnam wars, your personal vendetta, and your fantasies are not a valid topic for discussion here.  If Chomsky is a noted expert on Nicaragua whose expertise merits coverage in encylopedic articles about Nicaraguan history, your rant has failed to verify his credibility in that regard.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Chomsky claimed that "Indonesia has been an honored ally ever since General Suharto came to power in 1965 with a....‘staggering mass slaughter of Communists and pro-Communists,’ mostly landless peasants, that provided a ‘gleam of light in Asia’ (New York Times)." However, the "staggering mass slaughter" phrase was used in an unrelated editorial from August 25, 1966, which clearly denounces the atrocities: "Washington wisely has not intruded into the Indonesia turmoil". "To embrace the country's new rulers publicly could well hurt them". And so on.  The editorial states that the US refused to support the "staggering mass slaughter", and was right not to do so, because it "has left a legacy of subsurface tension that may not be eased for generations". It would be more accurate to say that the NYT vociferously denounced the killings, although a month earlier (on June 19, 1966) James Reston wrote a column describing strategic shifts in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Japan, the Philippines and China as "a gleam of light in Asia" without mentioning the killings.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that objectivity is impossible, balance is not desirable, everything should be written from a Marxist POV, and those that disagree are "morally reprehensible" and comparable to neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers is noted. I'm afraid, however, that your position is at odds with standard Wikipedia policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't you dare move my talk around as you see fit or I will have you reported, it is part of the discussion and its funny you throwing around "Marxist POV" my god, pick up a political or history book some time. Have you ever studied history? Theres nothing "marxist" (American propaganda at its finest) about it, just pure fact. You are trying to remove all sources and evidence which do not fit your view. If I had a vendetta I would go around all American articles righting nonsense such as on the US main article, Barack Obama etc. I have only been on the very articles which show clearly US actions and the result of them. Such as Guatemala Coup, the Contras funding, Chile etc etc. I am not on Baseball, American Pie, Friends, ABC, NBC etc etc. These are just elementary facts, that happened. In history. Get over it and stop worshipping your beloved state. Its not POV. Fact man. you simply removed it straight, there was no attemtp to rewrite to better reflect sources. And countless other examples. --JTBX (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I found your home. --JTBX (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Then report it. Your personal attacks, weird accusations, and political commentary are not related to the issue of if this quote adds encylopedic value to the page. If you think your bizarre personal vendetta belongs here, then report me for marking it as the soapbox it obviously is. Be careful about WP:BOOMERANG, however. If you want to promote your political views online, get a blog. It seems you're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, as Nick-D said on his talk page, I and several other editors were told to strike Horhey's edits. We were under no obligation to rewrite them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I did go off topic, but it was to demonstrate a point. You can use Chomsky's quotes, but you can't use, for example (in most cases) Alex Jones. And the copy pasted policies you like to throw out apply to you as well. And sure I will report it, but these things take time, there are lot of editors worse than you believe it or not, who have ownership issues on film articles for example. So yes there are a lot of "reports" and so on to do. I dont spend every minute of my time on Wikipedia. --JTBX (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh and btw, WP:NOTHERE applies to you more I think, perhaps why you are so familiar with it (blatant removal of sources, long term agenda, not here certainly to build an encyclopedia but an encyclopedia of whitewashed crimes) and WP:BOOMERANG is like your WP: Verifiablity not truth nonsense again, those are not wikipedia policies but essays written by users. you need to double check that, and if the goal is verifiability then certainly you are the last person who should be telling others about that. --JTBX (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the quote in question I have to come to conclude that it would be better for the article to be restructured and more a reliance on sourcing quotes rather than just copy pasting them on. --JTBX (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has taken a weird tangent to the bizarre and personal. Everyone associated needs to take to break and recalibrate. Let's all double check our standards (both personal and wiki-like) and then move forward. The track record so far is muddled. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's why I tried to hide the offensive personal attacks from JTBX. I'm going to try again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources again
There is a line in the Nicaraguan piece that states "The Sandinistas have been accused of killing thousands by Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights". This is taken from a 1987 book. This organisation was funded by the American government thru the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front. Their figures at that time are not even seriously worth considering in my opinion.Zrdragon12 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Should be included if notable but the American funding should be mentioned. Hows the RightWinger's sockpuppet investigation of you coming along by the way? JTBX (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be left in but as you say it needs to be mentioned that they are funded by what is basically the CIA, their figures do not tally with figures released by Amnesty and others at the time. I do not know what is happening with the sockpuppet thing, I am confident that it will come to nothing because the guy who brought it up is ... I should write something here that not very complimentary but that is against the rules. Zrdragon12 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then good job so far, I hope we can work together some time. I am currently thinking of working on the Chile 1973 coup article, it has a lot of problems. JTBX (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you know where to find me. Chile 1973 is interesting. I was reading the page for the Sandinista earlier on, seems it has been written by Ronald Reagan and I thought he was dead.Zrdragon12 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Niger/Mali
These were both promptly removed by GabrielF. The Washington Post and BBC are reliable if embarrassing sources for these entries. I did not properly cite FPIF and I will fix that. I am assuming that this was the cause for the TW deletion of both new entries. I'm sure the massive amount of deletion in the history of this article is just responsible community involvement. Jgmoneill (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that the Washington Post or the BBC are reliable, the issue is that they are not saying what you claim they are saying. In the Mali case, the Post does say that Capt. Sanogo received military training in the United States, however, it does not say that the coup he led was sponsored by covert military action. To include a section on Mali in this article, based solely on the fact that Sanogo received training in the United States, is to imply that his coup was a covert American regime change action. The cited source does not support this. Similarly, the BBC article discusses American military operations in the Sahel region, but it does not mention the coup in Niger. To use this as a source in a section implying that the coup in Niger was a covert regime change action by the United States is misleading and original research. GabrielF (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response and will clarify. Jgmoneill (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GabrielF Concerning Mali; Does "accidental" Regime Change count if the US is officially "embarrassed"? I am debating on whether or not to go for this time-sink, because it appears you have me (and any genuine +contributor) in a logic-trap over the whole premise of this article. Jgmoneill (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by accidental regime change or by whether something counts. In general, Wikipedia doesn't publish original theories or analysis. You would need a reliable secondary source that identifies the Mali coup as an example of covert US foreign regime change. GabrielF (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sonogo benefited extensively from theInternational Military Education and Trainingprogram among others and used that training to depose President Amadou Toumani Touré. This article states "Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coup d'états, and other activities..." Despite the US's official stance of the coup being "unfortunate" (a vague term used by Hillary Clinton, as acting Secretary of State, to describe the coup), Sonogo was in fact sponsored by the United States by virtue of his training. Despite the official US denial of responsibility for Sonogo's actions, it has been well documented that he was funded and enabled by a host of training programs on US soil and that he did indeed initiate a coup successful in Mali. If the Malian coup does not qualify for this article about covert regime change, I suggest the word "covert" be removed from the title of the article and replaced with "official". Jgmoneill (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Dictator" or "Leader"?
I noticed that certain leaders--like the right-wing Trujillo and Diem--are described as "dictators," whereas the left-wing Castro is referred to only as a "leader." Now, I think that South Vietnam under Diem was considerably less repressive than Cuba under Castro, but this is a serious issue that merits more consideration. What is Wikipedia policy regarding how to describe such leaders? Do a large number of reliable sources not describe Castro as a tyrant?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The term leader is neutral but non-specific and potentially confusing if it's not clarified. For instance, President Fidel Castro and President Barak Obama both hold the same title and are leaders of nations, but lead different types of government. Both tyrant and dictator are descriptive words used to classify a leader based on ones perspective. A reliable source should avoid using that type of language. To illustrate the concept, here is an example using your own argument:
 * According to someone, "Israeli Leader Benjamin Netanyahu is a tyrannical war-mongering dictator who was undoubtedly involved in the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin." I'm sure we all agree that's not a NPOV. Jgmoneill (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just use their official title. In the case of a ton of titles and/or excessively wordy or theatrical use common sense when shortening them down. If a reader wants to find out more about the specifics of a person's position within a state or the nature of their government they can find out on the parent biography. Try to avoid characterizations requiring substantial referencing, this isn't the place to fight it out. Also understand this article is a magnet for politics and agenda editing. You'll get a lot of both anti-american leftists and the black helicopter wary crowd here. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, even though I'm sure many Westerners might think of them as tyrants, I changed Diem, Trujillo, Qasim, and Marcos to either "President" or "Prime Minster".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you’re falsely assuming there’s a difference. ^^ It’s the same thing, depending on if the writer thinks his side gained benefits from it or not. — 87.79.48.238 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ukraine too.
I remember that the “orange revolution” was done in much the same way. The “protesters” were fake, like in Iran’s case… agents, paid people, brought in in buses, … with the cameras always filming in a way to make it look much bigger.

It was Russia vs. USA again. One candidate/puppet for each. So the competitor was just as much fake and staged.

— 87.79.48.238 (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have sources and reliable articles to point to, please add them. While I have seen enough documented cases around the world to realize this is entirely possible (CIA or others organizing the "spontaneous" opposition etc) that is not enough, one needs sources. If you have time, do a google search, and see what you can find to verify so only properly cited is used. Thanks. Harel (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources That Don't Refer At All to the Subject Matter
There is a phrase in the Ghana section which says that claims of CIA involvement may have been based on Soviet propaganda. The reference cited mentions Christopher Andrew's book "The World Was Going Our Way" specifically pg. 452-453. If you look at those pages through Google Books, you find that these pages don't at all refer to Kwame Nkrumah. Those pages refer to the FNLA (Angolan National Front). I'm going to delete that phrase and its source. If someone can find an actual source for the claim. I welcome them to post it.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick check on Google books shows that the book does, indeed, discuss the KGB misinformation which deceived Nkrumah (pg. 435).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How did the KGB spread these claims? Would be worth explaining this somewhere -A1candidate (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox doesn't match article
missing hawaii section, etc. -Wormcast (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because past discussion was against including it. I agree that the infobox should be limited to what the article discusses. Greece could be added to the text--many Greeks believe the CIA was behind the 1967 coup, even though it wasn't.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of U.S. involvement?
Upon examination of the sources present, it appears to me that the only people alleging U.S. involvement are members of the Venezuelan government or ardent conspiracy theorists. I'm currently working on a rewrite of the main article, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Covert United States foreign regime change actions should only include verifiable actions, not allegations of U.S. involvement—especially when the allegations come from state-run propaganda sources that regularly scapegoat the U.S.

I've included the text I removed from the mainspace below:

Venezuela 2002
In 2002, Washington is claimed to have approved and supported a coup against the Venezuelan government. Senior officials, including Special Envoy to Latin America Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra figure and George W. Bush "democracy 'czar'" Elliott Abrams, were allegedly part of the plot. Top coup plotters, including Pedro Carmona, the man installed during the coup as the new president, began visits to the White House months before the coup and continued until weeks before the putsch. The plotters were received at the White House by the man President George W. Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Special Envoy Otto Reich. It has been claimed by Venezuelan news sources that Reich was the U.S. mastermind of the coup.VHeadline, June 24, 2004

Former U.S. Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen told the British newspaper The Guardian that American military attachés had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to explore the possibility of a coup. "I first heard of Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers [the assistant military attaché now based at the U.S. embassy in Caracas] going down there last June [2001] to set the ground", Mr. Madsen reported, adding: "Some of our counter-narcotics agents were also involved." He claims the U.S. Navy assisted with signals intelligence as the coup played out and helped by jamming communications for the Venezuelan military, focusing on jamming communications to and from the diplomatic missions in Caracas. The U.S. embassy dismissed the allegations as "ridiculous".

Bush Administration officials and anonymous sources acknowledged meeting with some of the planners of the coup in the several weeks prior to April 11, but have strongly denied encouraging the coup itself, saying that they insisted on constitutional means. Because of allegations, Sen. Christopher Dodd requested a review of U.S. activities leading up to and during the coup attempt. A U.S. State Department Office of Inspector General report found no "wrongdoing" by U.S. officials either in the State Department or in the U.S. Embassy.Inspector General Report, U.S. Department of State

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Though I haven't read that one, the sourced allegations of Madsen are certainly worth including. I did find this:


 * * Venezuela coup linked to Bush team Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President


 * "officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it,"


 * So here the sources are not just the Venezuelan government (or it's "propaganda sources" which I find interesting you find have "scapegoated" Washington but not the reverse, not Washington scapegoating the Venezuelan government as a dictatorship no matter how many elections that outside observers verified, were won. It's not like Chavez's brother was the governor of a state and used that control to get Chavez in power (think Florida, 2000...had a Chavez brother done that, imagine the screams of a totalitarian leftist banaba republic we would have heard..!)


 * Lastly uncontroversially, the U.S. supported the coup when it was in progress, and openly admits it: uncontroversially, it immediately recognized the coup as a legitimate government. Not only did other countries not immediately do it, no other OAS state at all, other than the U.S., recognized it, and in the immediate aftermath of a coup in the first few days, that makes a huge difference to how likely it is to succeed.


 * Military power matters, people's demonstrations matter, but also, international recognition (or lack thereof) matters quite a lot. So this certainly counts as supporting the coup, not just "after the fact" - a year later would have been "after the fact", maybe a month later one could argue was "not supporting the coup but only after the fact" but in the immediate hours and days when everything is fluid, to declare support for the "legitimacy" of the coup government as no other OAS government did, and as others condemned, that is supporting the coup before it is written in stone (ultimately, it never did get 'written in stone' and was undone). If the Soviet Union or today's Russia or China had done the same, this alone would be something we would (reasonably) consider "support for the coup". And that is as I said, not even contested by anyone - it was a public statement by the U.S. government that was in countless press articles - support for the coup plotters while things were still fluid in those first critical hours. See also Guardian article. Hopefully this can be updated both here, and on the separate article on the 2002 coup attempt, if someone has time to incorporate these two with citations. Harel (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And equally so, obviously, if a Chinese or Russian "Former Navy intelligence officer" was quoted in the Guardian or similar newspaper as asserting that Russia or China was involved in supporting coup plotters, jamming communications etc, that would be something we would consider (again, rightly) as "this merits inclusion in the article" on Chinese or Russian covert actions etc (along with, yes, including the official Russian or Chinese authorities saying the allegation is "ridiculous" also included, for balance, of course..) Harel (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * To original subject: sorry to inform you, but Jimmy Carter is not an "ardent conspiracy theorist" or "propaganda source"... he is in fact a notable source, like several of the others who are referenced in this article as well as the one on the coup itself. Try again. 71.167.107.243 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The US government recognized the new government, true, but the evidence for its direct involvement in the coup itself is all either circumstantial or by third hand sources. "A former Navy intelligence officer says xyz" is not hard evidence.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Map
I've created a map of the world indicating all US regime change actions since 1950. Is it worth including in the article? 0x60 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A map would be nice, but this one doesn't seem to be correct. For example, it marks Iran, Pakistan and all former Yugoslav states (except Kosovo) as invasions. Chrisahn (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the map. I guess, I am wrong on Iran and Yugoslav states, will correct it. But while I understand that drone attacks in Packistan might not qualify as "invation", I think it's important to mark that on the map. Should I create a separate category for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0x60 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This kind of synthesis is beyond the scope of the article (although the article itself is arguably synthesis as well).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a new map, which features only countries mentioned in the article 0x60 (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the map. The inclusion of Ukraine and Israel is not justifiable. The caption "Countries where regime change has been engineered by the United States since 1950" is also unacceptable. The United States did not "engineer" regime change in, say, Poland, for example - it supported Solidarity but it did not engineer anything. Other cases involve the US providing tacit support for a coup - this is not the same as engineering.GabrielF (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What about Germany, Italy and Japan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.11.197 (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Map issues
For what reason are Israel, Poland and Ukraine on the map? Also, for what reason is Poland on the article? Publically expressing diplomatic support for a particular party in support of freedom generally isn't 'covert' or 'forced regime change'. Map will be removed till fixed and Poland till justified if it's not replied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.106.29 (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the map (for the second time). GabrielF (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Exclusion of Haiti, 2004
Haiti's regime change certainly qualifies as covert, as the US still denies involvement in encouraging the rebellion (though they can't deny their interference in forcefully removing a head of state from their country), there was definitely a regime change, the old government was thrown out and a new one instituted, and the former President Aristide is very adamant that the US forced his hand. While the involvement was relatively subtle and the US doesn't acknowledge it, there seems to be enough support for those claims to at least acknowledge it in the article on Covert US foreign regime change actions.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing sections
The article is missing sections on Panama (see invasion of Panama) and Haiti in the 1990s (Aristide was overthrown twice). Poyani (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What about Eden to Macmillan transition in the UK in 1957? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.226 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't USA intervene in Grenada sometime in the 1980's? - Gopalan evr (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)