Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

00matthew2000, CharlesH.Woo
.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Venezuela 2020

Dispute resolution noticeboard

talk) 14:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll be

WP:RECENTISM
. Three years later, in an article that is mostly about coups and invasions, not any regime change has happened in the country and the United States has not been involved in any attempt thereof, as the section itself states.

The section already mentions contradictory content regarding involvement in this venture, or even its intent, including that tn December 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the United States did not plan a military intervention in Venezuela; while saying that "we have said that all options are on the table", he also said that "we have learned from history that the risks from using military force are significant", as well as Michael Shifter's statement, president of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, that "military action of the United States against Venezuela would be contrary to the movements of the Trump administration to retire troops from Syria or Afghanistan." Not only that, but when María Corina Machado, leader of right-wing party Vente Venezuela, stressed the importance of a military option, Elliott Abrams, the United States Special Representative for the country, described María Corina's proposal as "surrealist", even going it as far as to mock and compare it to Gabriel García Márquez's magic realism.[1]

The closest statements supporting this is AFP's memo regarding the divertion of US funds to Guaidó's "interim government, including office supplies; there has been a long standing consensus that support is not the same as involvement, particularly when it isn't clear how a regime change is taking place. This support is more akin to a debate club or model of United Nations for Guaidó, contrary to programs such as Syria's Timber Sycamore, where there has been explicit funding to weaponry and training to armed rebel groups.

At the end, this sabre-rattling and empty threats appear to have had a more domestic interest, rather than a foreign one, aimed at winning votes from the Cuban and Venezuelan diaspora in the swing state of Florida and that never followed through (and apparently never will). As such, the section should be removed. On top of it all, the article still has length issues and could benefit from the removal of a section that borders on the fringe. I'm open to any comments regarding this change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @WMrapids: to explain why they are reinstating the section. It would be much appreciated if you could address previous points from this section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Abrams: plan de María Corina Machado me recuerda al realismo mágico de García Márquez". Analítica. 1 September 2020. Retrieved 9 January 2022.

Terrible.

Sorry but this article is terrible. It ignores the larger context of the Cold War and America’s perception of the threat of the spread of Communism. The influence of NSC 68 is ignored even though it drove America’s foreign policy during the Cold War. https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsc-hst/nsc-68.htm

Also, some sections have nothing to do with US involvement in regime change in Latin America. Fr example, the first part of the Panama section. If a student gave this to me for a grade, he’d get a ‘D’ at best. --97.79.29.52 (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. Thanks for pointing this out. Your comments sound reasonable, so if you have time, I would encourage you to start editing the article and fixing the issues you see. If you delete content, make sure to justify it in the edit summary. Use inline citations as much as possible and for anything that might be challenged by other editors. There are two ways to edit: source editor and visual editor. I recommend visual editor since it makes inline citations very easy (just hit the "cite" button). Also, feel free to create an account to get access to some quality of life features such as pinging, watchlist, and others. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely biased, but unfortunately that's Wikipedia, and we can't change it. There is no point in getting into an edit war with jobless leftists, who will ultimately win with numbers and sympathetic admins. jej1997 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Tragic Days

In the article, 1913 Mexico coup d'etat isn't mentioned. The government of president Madero got overthrown by Gen. Huerta with financial and political support from the American embassy. I suggest it to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoroneldelNorte (talk • contribs)

Venezuela intermin president plan

your argument can be quickly refuted. WMrapids (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

That account relies much too heavily on Neumann -- one journalist's opinions, and he is no fan of Guiado or the Trump administration. This is an area where we have hundreds of sources; relying on one account is UNDUE. Neumann's opinions should be attributed, and kept within
due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok. Well I will add more sources then. WMrapids (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the insight, Sandy. Besides what you mentioned, this section has always been disputed: it was first added by a dynamic IP in the eve of the presidential crisis, and in relied both in recentism as in speculation. Four years afterwards, it was demonstrated that said regime change never took place. Another reason for the dispute is that support (US recognizing Guaidó) is different from involvement.
These issues have been thoroughly discussed in the past and it surely means opening another can of worms. The discussion can be renewed, sure, but it'd be ideal to provide a briefing of the main points and to avoid repeating them. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Involvement in regime change doesn't exclude unsuccessful attempts. WMrapids (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: Figured I'd let you know that I made this edit. Take a look, but there are plenty of sources for inclusion. WMrapids (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently mostly consists in actions that are clear involvement and mostly successful, including the section about Haiti that you yourself added ([1]). The issue remains that support must be distinguished from actual involvement. Adding Venezuela is just a case of
WP:RECENTISM, further demonstrated too by being the longest section that the article would have had. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@

WP:RFCBEFORE along with other information regarding the process and following a review, it appears that an RfC may be appropriate. Since I do not want to interrupt Wikipedia with an unnecessary RfC, do you think this would be appropriate as well?--WMrapids (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

It's just my opinion, but I doubt you'll get support through an RFC. I'm not going to comment on whether the events in Venezuela should be included, but 14k of text when the invasion and overthrow of Panama is covered in one sentence seems way to much (Nicaragua only gets two).
If you're going to start an RFC you need to think first about what you might get supply for. If you start one asking for the sun and the moon I doubt you'll get support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for the prompt reply. Not necessarily asking for 14k of text, just the bare minimum of inclusion. Much of the explanatory text was to provide citations, etc. to support inclusion, though it can be slimmed down. WMrapids (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then as I said if you feel an RFC is the next step make sure it has a simple question about a defined point. I get feeling the communities patience is wearing thin for discussions/RFCs in this area that contain walls of text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that we hadn't had an RfC here to discuss what "involvement" means (probably because it has been discussed in parallel with other subjects). I suggest we discuss that before moving on. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy; involvement in regime change is whatever reliable sources deem it may be. WMrapids (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you will agree that "involved" does not appear explicitly in all of the entries in this article (see Bolivia) and "involvement" could cover too many broad situations.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read my reply above again. You're suggesting that we remove "involvement" from the title of this article? Are you suggesting that the United States was "involved" only if regime change was successful? Feel free to create United States involvement in successful regime change in Latin America, but everything seems bright and clear according to the sources. Creating an argument about semantics is unnecessary. WMrapids (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope, terms, definition ReyHahn wrote:

I am surprised that we hadn't had an RfC here to discuss what "involvement" means (probably because it has been discussed in parallel with other subjects). I suggest we discuss that before moving on. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Article content ranges from

  1. countries where there was clear U.S. intervention demonstrated by the due weight of reliable sources supporting that (Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba Bay of Pigs), to;
  2. countries where the U.S. endorsing a certain government is included as "involvement" (current text on, for example, Guatemala), or that combined with dubious weight issues that include one-source opinions rather than a due weight of sources (eg Brazil); or US officials merely visiting the country or had relationships with officials (eg Argentina); to
  3. countries where the entry is almost entirely based on primary sources (eg Chile), or countries where the entry is based on poorly-written, incomplete or unreliable sources indicating CIA involvement (eg Ecuador);

and so on. What is this article about? What is the criteria for inclusion? That should be discussed and scope defined; cherry-picking to find one, some, few or several sources that use the words "regime change" (particularly when most don't describe a given country intervention that way) should not be a basis for inclusion; what should the basis be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's an issue. Our page on
coercive diplomacy. Regime change may entail the construction of new institutions, the restoration of old institutions, and the promotion of new ideologies. So, to be included here, fitting that description is an absolute minimum. But I would say that not only should at least one reliable source should say that the US was involved in an incident it describes as regime change (otherwise we're reliant on original research and synthesis), but that we should only include if the preponderance of RSs say this (otherwise we're cherry-picking sources rather than promoting a neutral point of view). Finally, there's the question of whether unsuccessful or incomplete regime change should be included, e.g. incidents where the US intervened but there was no change of regime, or where they wanted to intervene but didn't, etc. I'd say we should avoid these, at risk of incoherence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
On reflection, wouldn't it be better to have this discussion at Talk:United States involvement in regime change and then whatever policy is decided there should be followed in this and any other branch articles from that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that would be convenient. The articles have different structures but are about the same topic. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No success does not mean that "involvement" didn't occur. Involvement is involvement, so if a reliable source says involvement happened, then it is verifiable and can be placed. WMrapids (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Discussion has been moved to Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Scope of article.--WMrapids (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Inclusion of Venezuela

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdrawn for now. Consensus reached to instead determine what includes "involvement". WMrapids (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should a section on Venezuela be included in the article?--WMrapids (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include: Taking a look at this edit, there are sufficient sources to include a section on Venezuela in this article. The sources clearly indicate that the United States was involved in regime change efforts in Venezuela. While all of the text present in the edit is not necessary, the inclusion of Venezuela is appropriate.--WMrapids (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This (another WMrapids premature RFC) needs to stop; ReyHahn raised a valid point for discussion above that was ignored, and ActivelyDisinterested's comment about the community's patience is spot on-- and extends to all the Venezuelan articles and RFCs where this has been a recurring problem. The scope of the question is too ill-defined to resullt in any meaningful answer or concensus, and this comes after patiently showing WMrapids how to craft a consensus RFC/RM at another article. Patience is exhausted. Shoving premature and poorly discussed content into articles is not good editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: I actually specifically consulted ActivelyDisinterested on this, who suggested above that "if you feel an RFC is the next step make sure it has a simple question about a defined point". Well, "Should a section on Venezuela be included in the article?" seems to be a clear and simple question. So instead of attacking the user, maybe you could provide your opinion on inclusion? WMrapids (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could provide an opinion on inclusion once the discussion ReyHahn advocated is had; the RFC question is too vague to result in anything meaningful. We've seen at other articles where some editors think anything, however defined, is a coup; definition of terms and scope would be a useful first step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to read this through properly but as a quick comment I don't think that Jacobin or Yaffe are good sources to use in a contentious area. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and I'm curious about Revista Controversia, which my IP won't let me open due to malware or something, so am dubious about it being an RS. It doesn't have an article on es.wikipedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with BobFromBrockley on all three sources; we have scores of unbiased reliable sources in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please wait I guess this is just another WMrapids Let us not rush into an RfC yet. Not everything has to be decided with an RfC. Why not make an RfC to decide what involvement means first?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    cast aspersions or to discuss something off-topic. WMrapids (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Deciding what inclusion criteria the article uses could have been a good idea before starting this RFC. As it would give participants some measure to base their comments on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with this argument is that users involved (including ReyHahn) did not raise any concerns about inclusion criteria for the past five years until this RfC specifically on Venezuela arose. WMrapids (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WMrapids, there are problems with many articles, I do not have the time to factcheck and raise concenrs in every article in Wikipedia, not even in all of the articles I am following. You are right that we should not cast aspersions, I recommend that you also please avoid casting aspersions about me.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WMrapids I'm just an uninvolved editor trying to offer advice. ReyHahn idea of defining the inclusion criteria for article is a good one, and if done would answer this question (if the actions in Venezuela meet the criteria they would be included, if they didn't then any other similar situation wouldn't either). If the question of inclusion criteria came down to an RFC it would also be a useful use of the communities time, as it would answer the question for any similar situations in the future. Rather than trying to have an RFC about ever specific event one at a time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a strict definition would leave the determination of "involvement" up to the opinions of a select group of users and not sources, which is inappropriate. If a reliable source clearly says that involvement occurred, then it occurred as long as Wikipedia is concerned. WMrapids (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that we remove Bolivia from this list because the sources do not say "involvement" or are you suggesting that any action taken by the US in favor or against a government is involvement. I think we could try to answer that first, it will allow us to avoid having multiple RfC every time that a country needs to be added or removed. Just looking for a source with the right term is just as interpretative.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WMrapids please consider slowing down with this RfC. Other users have shown support that it might be rushed and that an alternative wording might be helpful. You have contacted at least 8 Wikiprojects after I told you to wait and discuss.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as premature. There is a well established procedure. Please use it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as premature. There are other options still open than bulldozing. The Banner talk 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Besides the other users reasons, cyclical discussions are happening as many of the reasons cited for inclusion have already been said at some point. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @The Banner, ReyHahn, Gog the Mild, ActivelyDisinterested, SandyGeorgia, and NoonIcarus: For those involved, what would be best moving forward with this article? If we are going to discuss a user-based definition for what constitutes "involvement", it should be a binding consensus, which means a discussion with ample participation. Would an RfC on a definition be more appropriate? Again, not trying to "rush" an RfC (you can see that I asked for guidance above) but this decision should have more participation than a handful of users.--WMrapids (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know how you expect me to answer this question when I have quite literally spent the last few months of my life trying to show you how to do it correctly on other articles. I can't keep repeating myself, and we keep having to rehash discussions because you haven't read them. I don't know what else you think I can add, since to this point you haven't acknowledged my advice or heeded my examples of how to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a way forward on this particular topic, not mudslinging towards me. As I said, every RfC has been raised in good faith, especially this one with which I specifically asked for advice before opening it. So, sorry that I'm trying to find a consensus... WMrapids (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you ping me, wanting a specific response from me, on a page I'm already following, you're going to get my frank opinion about this proliferation of RFCs. The question of what definitions and terms are being used on this page is a real problem, that question wasn't addressed before this RFC went forward, and it's obvious from looking at the different countries mentioned in the article that it's a POV hodgepodge. I'll expand on that problem, which should have been addressed first, at the section where ReyHahn first raised that query. I've tried to show you elsewhere that rushed RFCs often lead to
GIGO conclusions and ongoing dispute and I've tried to show you how to take the time to formulate a request for feedback to avoid that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Multiple reliable sources would be a good start. Not just one opinion. The Banner talk 09:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. And for existing sections that have limited sources, we could place the Template:More citations needed section for a determined amount of time before potential removal. WMrapids (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it works the other way round: first removal then a proposal for a new properly sourced text. The Banner talk 11:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that work at the
Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis article might be better, as it already has some of the content and the bar for inclusion is "lower", since its scope is narrower and said involvement is not limited to "regime change". --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry for the late response, I am partially in favor of an alternative RfC. Closing this one and working on a draft to comment on would be one way to go.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of what I see has happened, following the pointer by SandyGeorgia above, I oppose the proposal of this "RfC" as a matter of principle and irrespective of any merits it might have. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps the proposer should withdraw the RfC - or someone else should
    SNOW close it - the general opinion seems to be that the RfC is premature. Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America&oldid=1217149673"