Talk:United States involvement in regime change

Scope of article
There was the start of a discussion on scope that the Latin America page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America#Scope,_terms,_definition On reflection, I think we need a new section here on this talk page (possibly an RfC) on the scope of "involvement in regime change", including the question of regime change that didn't happen, delinked from the Venezuela question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging users previously involved in discussions here and in other article --WMrapids (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Since some are already suggesting that unsuccessful regime change should be excluded, it still should count as "involvement" if reliable sources say so. For instance, if someone was directly assisting with an attempted murder, it does not mean that they were not involved.--WMrapids (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has no short description so presumably this question has never arisen. The simplest solution is to include both successful and unsuccessful actions by the US and mention this in the lead and article description. Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, there is a reason why my answer above won't work. The current readable prose size is already 96 kB, which means it requires splitting. Due to the US' propensity for attacking countries, sometimes multiple times, the article is going to continue growing. Splitting the article according to successful/unsuccessful actions will reduce the size by hiving off actions against Cuba, Venezuela and South Vietnam. However, there may be a better (and possibly more natural) way of splitting the article. Burrobert (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We could divide the article by continents or regions since we already have United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, so this would follow WP:CONSISTENT. Then sections in this article could provide a short summary on involvement in each region with a "main article" tag below each section title. WMrapids (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could also make titles by century, such as United States involvement in regime change in the 19th century, United States involvement in regime change in the 20th century, etc.--WMrapids (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Either of these would be a better solution. One of the problems with dividing by success is that countries would sometimes be moving from one article to another after a change in government. Burrobert (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the regional split idea the best. As Burrobert says, the other one is ripe for confusion. Also, the regional split would allow us to more easily spin off sections into their own articles.


 * I especially like the idea to make a section explaining US motives in chronological order and then dividing the parent article into sections by region, with links to each child.


 * I'm not familiar with the relevant WP policy on this, should we call a vote or something?


 * It is also possible that some countries (Cuba, Vietnam, etc) already have enough content to merit their own separate article. CVDX (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFCBEFORE; "calling for a vote" is premature until/unless all issues are fleshed out, to avoid a GIGO RFC. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For Cuba and Vietnam, we have United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution as an example. WMrapids (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Split the article?
As mentioned, the article may be growing too large. I’ve made the suggestion of splitting the article (if we agree on splitting) with two proposals; child articles based by regions or child articles based by time period. Which would you prefer? Any other opinions?--WMrapids (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The article now is structured by time period, so that would be the easiest split. Would need to hear more opinions about whether it's the best split. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe it could be the best split because it is the easiest? It would also probably guarantee that each page has a similar size. Another alternative might be splitting based on a regional focus, as there is already one for Latin America, although I believe that can be a little messy.


 * Of course, there's always the option to remove original research in this article and to establish a definite bar, which would help to trim the article down. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's one problem with splitting; where arguably, this article should just be cut down, while splitting allows the POV to mushroom and be harder to maintain. Aside, I don't think by century, as suggested above, would be optimal, as that doesn't account for the natural breaks that occur more along the lines of, for example, pre- and post-WWII, or pre- and post-Cold War, etc. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is an idea:
 * Parent article (United States involvement in regime change)
 * A section can be created towards the beginning of the body that explains US motives chronologically (WWII, Cold War, etc.)
 * The parent article can be divided into  sections by region , with a linked placed to each regional child article
 * Each section can provide a summary on each regional article
 * Child articles (United States involvement in regime change in region)
 * Create child articles  based by region  from parent article
 * Child articles can have sections  based by time period , which aids with transfer.
 * Let me know how you feel about this. WMrapids (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Premature and unnecessary until this article is cleaned up, and terms are defined. That is, splitting one POV mess of an article into multiple POV messes of articles creates ... well, obviously ... multiple messes.  First get definitions and clean up this one, then decide whether a split is even necessary. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I've already explained this above, but I disagree with divisions by region. There are more natural divisions by time (pre- World War II, post- World War II, Cold War, etc). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you recommend going forward with defining terms? WMrapids (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable suggestion . Policy seems to prefer splitting of articles rather that removing content when an article becomes unwieldy. Burrobert (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article could benefit from trimming of original research and coatrack information. Only after that, if the size remains an issue, a split would be a good alternative. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In the interest of clarity, can you explain specifically what information/sections you consider to be examples of WP:COATRACK? CVDX (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like an explanation since NoonIcarus makes WP:COATRACK claims frequently. WMrapids (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. My apologies, I've forgotten to reply. Previous content has included policies enacted after the regime change. One of the current examples in the 1976: Argentina is, for instance, According to Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón, Kissinger was a witness to the regime's crimes against humanity., among others. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Scope, continued
Revisiting this article and inviting previously involved users who have not participated in this topic.

We need help defining the scope of the article, so here are some questions that should be answered:
 * Should the threshold of inclusion be multiple reliable sources explicitly describing an involvement in "regime change"?
 * Should the article be split?
 * Later, if we agree on a split, how should the article be split?

I will organize the questions in subsections below. All thoughts and opinions are helpful, so don't be shy!--WMrapids (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging previous participants:, given the renewal of the questions at hand. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Threshold of inclusion
Should the threshold of inclusion be reliable sources describing events–including soft power, soft coup and hard power action–as involvement in "regime change" (including common sense synonymous descriptions such as "change in government", "coup", "ousting", etc.)?--WMrapids (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should be flexible in terms used, we dont have to use the term "regime change". The US govt involvement in coups, power changes, etc is all the same thing from an encyclopedic perspective. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No We've already have faced important WP:OR issues in the past (suffice to just take a look at the archives discussions), and the article is already long as it currently is.--NoonIcarus (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarification that I don't oppose synonymous being accepted for inclusion, but rather cases that involve soft power and that are otherwise a stretch. As other have mentioned, common sense is the best option here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes: If we have a reliable source that is able to verify the United States being involved in a regime change event, (that is, attempting "the partly forcible or coercive replacement of one government regime with another" that "can also be imposed on a country by foreign actors through invasion, overt or covert interventions, or coercive diplomacy") then such an event may be included in this article as it is not original research.--WMrapids (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should include all types of influence towards other countries. Mhorg (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "all types of influence" vastly inflates the scope. That pretty much defines "diplomacy" rather than "involvement in regime change". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes per the reasons stated above, and some common sense with regards to the subject. Many sources in Western media use euphemisms when discussing regime change and US foreign policy more broadly. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes were this is reliable sourcing of direct US involvement. I'd note that coercive diplomacy involves the threat or actual use of force, not just forceful diplomacy. Academic sourcing should be available for events for most of these events. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * re your comment on "coercive diplomacy" (which I agree would be a form of involvement in regime change), are you saying that "forceful diplomacy" would be outside the scope of the article? And, if so, where would class "soft power" in that? Thanks. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very, very late delay but yes, soft power shouldn't be included. This isn't "support of regime change" but "involvement in regime change". -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Τhe definition of regime change, for the purpose of this article, as given with robust support in Wikipedia is quite adequate. Let's revisit it, in full:
 * Regime change is the partly forcible or coercive replacement of one government regime with another. Regime change may replace all or part of the state's most critical leadership system, administrative apparatus, or bureaucracy. Regime change may occur through domestic processes, such as revolution, coup, or reconstruction of government following state failure or civil war. It can also be imposed on a country by foreign actors through invasion, overt or covert interventions, or coercive diplomacy. Regime change may entail the construction of new institutions, the restoration of old institutions, and the promotion of new ideologies.
 * Therefore, Yes, consider the threshold already raised. -The Gnome (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That "Yes" is not what I think the other "yes" meant. That is a criteria, contrary to the other possibility of adding information as soon as an article says "this is US involvement".--ReyHahn (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So,, yes to "invasion, overt or covert interventions, or coercive diplomacy" being synonyms for regime change, per the WP article, but what about to including soft power and soft coup as well, per the nomination above? Likewise, yes to new institutions and the restoration of old institutions as synonyms for regime change, per our article, but what about "change in government" per the nomination? (My sense is that you want to keep a raised threshold, whereas this proposal lowers the threshold.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No a proper criteria would be better. Just because a sources says it so is not enough, involvement is a loose term it can go from sending troops to talking bad about the government. Also a criteria of notability could help keeping this page concise, this is not a MOS:LIST.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes We need multiple (e.g. at least two) reliable sources, and something like "regime change," or "interference" with the end result being a regime change, or "coup," etc. are necessary. If you consider the Lumumba case for a moment, that involved significant contacts with opposition groups, and plots to kill Lumumba. A source could describe US involvement in the Congo without using terms like "coup" or "regime change" and it would still be describing US involvement in regime change. -Darouet (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not as worded currently in RfC. There's a lot going on in the proposal (reliable sources describing events–including soft power, soft coup and hard power action–as involvement in "regime change" (including common sense synonymous descriptions such as "change in government", "coup", "ousting", etc.)), which needs disentangling.
 * (a) reliable sources - non-controversial, but I note the plural, implying more than one. I guess if it's a straightforward case we don't need to seek out extra references and one would be fine, whereas if it's contested we would want a higher standard - e.g. a preponderance of reliable sources describe it in this way.
 * (b) coup (including soft coup if used literally), hard power, ousting, invasion, unseating, installation and similar terms are all obviously usable synonyms for regime change. However, soft power often isn't, and "change of government" certainly isn't. There was a change of government in the US in 2009, but it wasn't a change of regime. A change of government that maintains the same political system is not regime change. So we need to not be too expansive with synonyms.
 * (c) what's missing here is any stipulation around US "involvement". To me, it needs to be significant involvement to be notable enough for inclusion. A USAID grant to a civil society group or a US diplomat meeting with a coup plotter once would not merit inclusion here even if RSs used a synonym for regime change (or the term itself). This is where we need to be cautious about "soft power", for example. (d) personally, I think we need to consider stipulating whether or not regime change actually occurs or if it is an unrealised possibility in a particular instance, but I see there is a new talk thread below on that question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Yes, this is a requirement, but it may be not sufficient - see comment by Bobfrombrockley just above. It well can be that some sources say one thing, but others something opposite. A qualified judgement is needed. My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What counts as "involvement"?
I read the above discussion as very rapidly reaching strong consensus that we can use the WP article on regime change to enable us to use clear synonyms for regime change, such as coup (although I personally dissent in prefering the WP article wording to the suggestion above in that I would not include (constitutional) "change of government" as a synonym for regime change unless there was also a fundamental change in institutions). However, there seems to be less consensus so far on what counts as "involvement" and not many editors have commented on this. There is clearly agreement that military intervention (or threat thereof) or coercive diplomacy count. But what about other forms of diplomacy for example? Or funding non-violent opposition groups or independent media? Or making a speech that explicitly (or just appears to) support for a change of government? How significant does the involvement have to be? I think we need some agreement on this. I'd suggest the following: Instances should be included where there was significant US involvement such as military intervention, threat of intervention, use of coercive diplomacy, or a significant covert operation. I know that begs the question of what is "significant" but I don't have a better idea. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we split?
Should the article be split?--WMrapids (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont think we should split, unless WP:TOOLARGE has been triggered. It is better as one article. The encyclopedic part of the article is the many instances of similar actions by the US govt, so if we split it, it tends to fork the story. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No per the subsections above. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think this is the case at the moment. Mhorg (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No unless we hit a size limit. If we do break up the article, we should create a list article, if there isn't one already, such that anyone interested in the topic can easily see a list of entities in which the United States has engaged in regime change. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Possibly if more content is added, but not required at the moment. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Nope. Reasonable objections have been raised as to the size of the article. Well, in a semi-whimsical tone, I'll remark that another party and not Wikipedia editors is responsible for the very large size of a text about United States involvement in regime change. But, seriously, this is one classic case where we need both a shorter text about each item of US involvement and a pointer to the main article. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Gnome Agreed, the article is very unwieldy as is. Also, I think the split should be geographical (causes less problems with overlap than by time period).
 * Countries with more content could be the first to be spun off into separate articles -- Vietnam, Hawaii, Cuba, etc CVDX (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CVDX. We agree that the size is a bit big. We do not agree about splitting it. I must make this clear. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No I hope we can trimm it down per suggestion above. The article is definetely WP:TOOLARGE. If it is not possible to trim, a conversation into what could be split would be nice, if there is not one already.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "[A] conversation into what could be split would be nice": Or, better yet, trimmed. -The Gnome (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't Split but Trim is fine. As @The Gnome hilariously notes above, the article's large size results not from the incompetence of Wiki editors but from the United States' prodigious foreign policy experiments intended to make this page longer. Someone should talk to them about that. In the mean time trimming with links to main articles is a great idea. -Darouet (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Trim: I think it works better as a single article. I've been looking through and most entries have one para, and that's fine, but some could be tightened a bit. More significant entries (e.g. 1945 Korea) can go to a couple of paras, and that's fine. But there are some entries that are just far too long: 1952 Iran, 1959 Iraq, 1963 Iraq, 1970s Cambodia. A couple of long entries cover a very long period with multiple attempts at regime change (!975+ Angola, 1979+ Afghanistan, 2001+ Afghanistan) so they might need attention (should they be split into smaller entries? do they have unnecesary words in them) but not cut dramatically. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No: and per . This shows the consistent, repetitive behavior of the U.S.  It's the kind of thing Noam Chomsky has talked about at length.  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, trim this page if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, as per WMrapids' suggestion of a geographical split, but only for the largest, most unwieldy sections CVDX (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Must regime change be successful for inclusion?
Must regime change be successful for inclusion or is "involvement" in attempting/promoting regime change sufficient?--WMrapids (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Attempting/promoting is sufficient. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Attempting/promoting is sufficient just as Ghazaalch stated. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Agree with Ghazaalch and Jtbobwaysf above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. An article about successful US regime-change operations is possible but, as mentioned in previous discussions, this could lead to problems. The simplest solution is to include all US regime-change operations within one article (at least until size becomes an issue). Burrobert (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, BUT a better question should be whether failed involvement or attempts should be included in the article at all. With concerns about size and proposals for trimming, this seems to be grasping at straws at best. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , can you clarify: what is the difference between only including successful efforts and excluding unsuccessful efforts? Your arguments seem to imply you think that Yes only successful efforts should be included? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm very sorry, I was hoping to respond earlier. In principle yes, that's what I thought when I left my comment, although reading through the article I noticed that the Bay of Pigs Invasion is included, which I think is a very good example of unsuccessful. I think it would be better to focus in the scope, in that case, and consider unsuccessful attempts only if, for instance, they're armed invasions. Hope this helps to clarify. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Attempting/promoting is sufficient just as Ghazaalch and others have said. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be easier to verify and have more concise criteria (but not enough). Also it would help with the size.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. The main criterion here, too, is the level of notability. And that, as can trivially be shown, is not dependent on the success of an attempt at regime change. It can be reasonably presumed that the level of notability such an attempt, if unsuccessful, attracts correlates well with the significance and overall impact the attempt has, even if unsuccessful. Examples of failed attempts that attracted world-wide attention abound. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No but I agree with The Gnome on notability. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In general yes. I think the presumption should be that regime change should actually happen for it to count as regime change, and therefore where regime change didn't happen we wouldn't normally include it, otherwise the scope is potentially endless. However, there are a few more noteworthy incidents (significant upheavals such as major failed coups or failed revolutions) where, if the US role was significant, common sense would suggest inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just looking through the threads above and noted that 's !vote on inclusion criteria is also relevant here: We need multiple (e.g. at least two) reliable sources, and something like "regime change," or "interference" with the end result being a regime change, or "coup," etc. are necessary BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No but with notability as the guiding criteria. US efforts at regime change in Cuba and Venezuela come to mind. entropyandvodka &#124;  talk  17:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. A quick google search, even Cato Institute, not exactly non-neutral, would answer the same.  .  From my studies in International Relations and Noam Chomsky it has long been my understanding that any interference towards keeping or changing the government (especially interfering with a democratic election or other process) of other countries is the subject matter that is meant when people mention 'regime change'. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the "2019–2022: Venezuela" section be included?
Considering the previous discussions above, should the recently added "2019–2022: Venezuela" section be included in the article? (diff) Restarting pings: — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoonIcarus (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think we need to leave this here as a placeholder and return to it once the previous RfCs are resolved. Once we answer the above questions, it will be easier to see if Venezuela fits the new consensus. Meanwhile, it should be removed per WP:ONUS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Roger. I have removed it for the time being. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the snowball clause, it seemed pretty clear that consensus agreed on soft to hard power along with unsuccessful regime change attempts to be included in the article; all arguments that have been used in the past to prevent inclusion of the Venezuela section. With these arguments dashed, it was obvious that Venezuela should be included in this article. All of this was done to avoid an unnecessary RfC specifically on another Venezuelan topic, yet as what frequently happens with Venezuelan topics, it has again turned to a dispute.
 * So, should we open a formal request for comment? Everything else appears resolved except for the placement of the section on Venezuela. WMrapids (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * SNOW applies here to the splitting question for sure. It might also apply to the question of unsuccessful regime change. But it does not apply to the threshold question, where there seems to be a range of opinions. I think that needs to play out more. Might be worth listing at relevant WP project pages. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, as one of the most obvious and well-sourced examples of efforts at regime change. Some of the people who have attempted to organize this are literally bragging about it to reporters. -Darouet (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes: As it is widely reported and Trump officials bragged about their involvement.  even says above that US involvement in Venezuela is what they think of when discussing the US being involved in attempted/unsuccessful regime change. This is pretty clear cut.--WMrapids (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No a section should be included but the diff as presented is way to much. The annexation of Texas and seizure of Alta California is two sentences. This article is stuff when it should be summarising. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes  should have tagged me too.  I had discussed his/her deletion of this section many times, e.g. .  As I remember, it was well-sourced and per  and  --David Tornheim (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And you have likewise have attempted to introduce it several times, despite opposition in general, bordering on filibustering. I did not ping you because it was before you participated in the last discussions and you were unactive for nearly four years. Take your time to comment on the sections above if you have the chance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The above "re-starting pings" probably had no effect, because there was no signature. I am going to do the ping again, even though a couple of editors have already responded... --David Tornheim (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes The only plausible explanation for the multifarious actions taken by the US against Venezuela (personal and economic sanctions, "using all economic levers to force a solution", embrace of Juan Guaido, treatment of Alex Saab, theft of Citgo, transmitting propaganda into Venezuela by Voice of America ...) is that it was aiming to change the government. The US said this itself. Burrobert (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but briefly. The previous 300 words was pushing UNDUE, IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should. Let the question of whether or not to include it be resolved first and, then, if the decision is to include it, we can deal with text size and quality. -The Gnome (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there are sources about this.--Mhorg (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... When i clicked on [[United States involvement in regime change I didnt see anything. I think this article also suffers from TOOLONG. Maybe it needs to be cleaned up a bit, such as creating sub articles and this article summarizes a bit? Maybe by centuries, or some other metric? I I am not opposed to inclusion of something on Venezuela (noting I haven't read what is proposed since the link didnt work), but it should probably be short as we are having at TOOLONG issue. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. It is extensively sourced, and explicitly admitted to by the US government here, for example, among other places. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  23:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No this would be adding diplomatic pressure among coups and invasions, which leads us back to the main question of the RfC: the article's scope, which has not be closed yet. Being an unsucessful episode, this probably means that the bar needs to be higher, and care against recentism should also be taken. Have respected scholars discussed about this? Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I agree with NoonIcarus that we should be wary of WP:RECENT. Scholarly sources are best, and while they aren't as fleshed out we should avoid going into detail regarding speculative content. I strongly oppose adding detail based on news articles. CVDX (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to notify users who shared their opinion on inclusion about this edit. Per WP:SNOW, the Venezuela section was placed and shortened down to five sentences, compared to the original diff of eight sentences. I was debating on removing the last sentence about President Biden's opinion, but kept it in for now. Hopefully this version is more appropriate than the previous diff and we can move on from here. Thanks for the feedback and provide some more if needed!--WMrapids (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * While the text definitely needs some improvement, I feel it's a step in the right direction. As of right now it's not clear exactly how the attempt at regime change happened, but I'm sure we can make it better over time. I think the Biden quote should stand. CVDX (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that part of the article back to being WP:NPOV. I have not carefully reviewed the WP:RS, but otherwise the language looks okay to me.  I agree with inclusion of the Biden quote, but it needs to be tempered somewhat:  Although there are some differences between the Republican and Democrat approach to Venezuelan foreign policy, there are plenty of similarities, especially recognizing Guaido as "interim president" and sanctions.  It wasn't just Trump establishing sanctions; Democrat Obama did too..  Shortly after Biden lifted some sanctions, some werereimposed.  Imagine if other countries held sanctions on the U.S. for removing Trump from the ballot for similar charges of insurrection.  I believe Guaido was at Biden's inauguration, but I can't find any RS from google saying he was there.  Biden negotiated a deal to bring back U.S. Green Berets who participated in a coup attempt on Maduro.  Spectrum news put up images of those green berets as "wrongfully detained"--suggesting that Biden's administration saw no problem with U.S. citizen's participating in that violent coup attempt.  --David Tornheim (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's interesting and all, but most of what you're mentioning isn't related to US involvement in regime change, risking WP:SYNTH and highlighting why the scope discussion above is so important. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Care should be taken regarding original research and what constitutes regime change or not, which is currently addressed by the Congressional Research Service. I trimmed the sentence about the plan presented to the State Department and added one about the US declaration. Likewise, I removed the following sentence because they're not actions by the United States:
 * with Guaidó praising the sanctions and demanding the European Union implement sanctions as well
 * I also removed Biden's quote for being an opinion and unrelated to the actions, without prejudice of it being restored. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Trimming
Due to the size concerns expressed at, I have trimmed several sections , including the following:


 * 1952: Guatemala (merging with 1954)
 * 1959: Iraq
 * 1959–1962: Cuba
 * 1963: Iraq
 * 1965–1967: Indonesia
 * 1970–1973: Cambodia
 * 1974: Ethiopia
 * 1975–1991: Angola
 * 1990–1991: Soviet Union
 * 1991: Iraq

I have also removed the section about "1949 Syria" because, from what I've seen, this has been highly contested (including at Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 1) and even the content itself conceded that there was no consensus among scholars about said involvement.

The article was reduced to 86 kB of readable prose, but these changes are without prejudice of challenge, and anyone is free to contest any or several of these adjustments. Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Article back at readable prose size of 98 kB after revert by David Tornheim. It would be good if he could explain the reasons, since they have join this last discussion just today. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please work on one section at a time, so we can see what is changed. Doing such a large change makes it hard to work with.  You gave no documentation to what exactly you were removing or why you thought it was unnecessary.  Please slow down.  I would like to be able to look at the before and after of a section.--David Tornheim (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Take as much time as you like, but calling the edit "fast" is far-fetched: it's been way over a week since the last comments, and as Bobfrombrockley comments below, some of the trimmed sections were already noted for their length.
 * The article is too long per WP:SIZE and the output above shows a clear agreement to shorten the article, meaning that if you can provide any feedback on which information can be removed it would be helpful. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just repasting my earlier comment on what should be trimmed, highlighting the three that NoonIcarus tried to trim: More significant entries (e.g. 1945 Korea) can go to a couple of paras, and that's fine. But there are some entries that are just far too long: 1952 Iran, 1959 Iraq, 1963 Iraq, 1970s Cambodia. A couple of long entries cover a very long period with multiple attempts at regime change (!975+ Angola, 1979+ Afghanistan, 2001+ Afghanistan) so they might need attention (should they be split into smaller entries? do they have unnecessary words in them?) but not cut dramatically. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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


 * An overview of my rational to trim the content is the following:
 * Content or section that had already been contested in this talk page.
 * Background or aftermaths unrelated to the regime change per se.
 * Discussions and disagreements between experts or scholars whether there was involvement or not. At times this is already summarized neatly just before with something similar to "it's complicated" or "experts don't agree".
 * Statements that repeat the information in the section or really don't contribute much to the content overall.
 * Leaving the change here as reference: --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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


 * If you want us to discuss the edits one by one you need to tell us what the issues are a bit more comprehensively. I don’t see a problem with any of the edits and we have strong consensus for trimming. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "economic warfare" is SYNTH as not in source. If a reliable secondary source calls it this can include. Have removed pending such a source. If replaced, needs better wording to avoid "included---including" clunky formulation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Article back at readable prose size of 98 kB. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I support most of these edits, as it keeps it readable and encyclopedic. I am unsure about these:
 * removal of Nixon quote that gives substance to description of US involvement
 * removal of affiliation of outgoing head of state. I think brief characterisation of pre- and post-change regime is helpful context.
 * BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's alright, both changes have been reverted now. Any one of these trims can be disputed if considered better. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

2014 Ukraine
I added material about the U.S. support of the 2014 coup in Ukraine. reverted saying, "Reverting potential original research. Both discussions showed important opposition for the inclusion." The two discussions in archives (1, 2) both said that sources need to be found of "United States involvement in regime change has entailed both overt and covert actions aimed at altering, replacing, or preserving foreign governments." Such documentation is provided in the material added. So why was it deleted?

If there is any question about meddling with an elected leader, it is well explained in this commentary published by Cato Institute. 03:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) --David Tornheim (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This article says "Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post‐​Yanukovych government". This is wrong because the debate in the phone call was not about a post-Yanukovych government. On 25 January 2014, Viktor Yanukovych himself offered the prime minister's job to Arseny Yatsenyuk and a deputy prime minister post to Vitali Klitschko.
 * And in this context Nuland and Pyatt discussed their preferences for Yatsenyuk and Klitschko going into a government under a president Yanukovych.
 * --Jo1971 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your quotes show that the U.S. indeed was meddling in the affairs of the Ukrainian government trying to pick and choose who they preferred to be prime minister. One can only imagine what would be said about interference in U.S. politics if Russia and China had tried to dictate who would be the new Speaker after Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House.  The engagement and support of the protesters by Nuland and McCain is clearly evidenced in the WP:RS and, for example, [].  Please also consider the additional material in:  American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution.  --David Tornheim (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Meddling? Maybe, but regime change? According to our article regime change is "the partly forcible or coercive replacement of one government regime with another". As you can see from the quotes, this does not apply here. Nuland and Pyatt talked about positions in a future government with the same president Viktor Yanukovych based on an offer from the very same president. --Jo1971 (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned the reason for the revert, and the edit summary should be self-explanatory. On top of what Jo1971 said, declarations and visits don't translate in "involvement in regime change", and even the US–Ukraine Foundation funding is not equal to an involvement in the Euromaidan. Besides, don't we already consider the Cato Institute a biased and opinionated source per WP:RS/P? DavidMCEddy and Oqwert questioned the lack of reliable sources for the inclusion, and Novem Linguae questioned if the content could be considered involvement in regime change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * --Jo1971 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your quotes show that the U.S. indeed was meddling in the affairs of the Ukrainian government trying to pick and choose who they preferred to be prime minister. One can only imagine what would be said about interference in U.S. politics if Russia and China had tried to dictate who would be the new Speaker after Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House.  The engagement and support of the protesters by Nuland and McCain is clearly evidenced in the WP:RS and, for example, [].  Please also consider the additional material in:  American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution.  --David Tornheim (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Meddling? Maybe, but regime change? According to our article regime change is "the partly forcible or coercive replacement of one government regime with another". As you can see from the quotes, this does not apply here. Nuland and Pyatt talked about positions in a future government with the same president Viktor Yanukovych based on an offer from the very same president. --Jo1971 (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned the reason for the revert, and the edit summary should be self-explanatory. On top of what Jo1971 said, declarations and visits don't translate in "involvement in regime change", and even the US–Ukraine Foundation funding is not equal to an involvement in the Euromaidan. Besides, don't we already consider the Cato Institute a biased and opinionated source per WP:RS/P? DavidMCEddy and Oqwert questioned the lack of reliable sources for the inclusion, and Novem Linguae questioned if the content could be considered involvement in regime change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Meddling? Maybe, but regime change? According to our article regime change is "the partly forcible or coercive replacement of one government regime with another". As you can see from the quotes, this does not apply here. Nuland and Pyatt talked about positions in a future government with the same president Viktor Yanukovych based on an offer from the very same president. --Jo1971 (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned the reason for the revert, and the edit summary should be self-explanatory. On top of what Jo1971 said, declarations and visits don't translate in "involvement in regime change", and even the US–Ukraine Foundation funding is not equal to an involvement in the Euromaidan. Besides, don't we already consider the Cato Institute a biased and opinionated source per WP:RS/P? DavidMCEddy and Oqwert questioned the lack of reliable sources for the inclusion, and Novem Linguae questioned if the content could be considered involvement in regime change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

2004 Ukraine
Where's the regime change in this? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The section had the same problems as the section above, including original research. I have removed it as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)