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 @ReyHahn, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Gog the Mild, The Banner, NoonIcarus, The Gnome, Pincrete, Burrobert, and Skornezy:--WMrapids (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Since some are already suggesting that unsuccessful regime change should be excluded, it still should count as "involvement" if reliable sources say so. For instance, if someone was directly assisting with an attempted murder, it does not mean that they were not involved.--WMrapids (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The article has no short description so presumably this question has never arisen. The simplest solution is to include both successful and unsuccessful actions by the US and mention this in the lead and article description. Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, there is a reason why my answer above won't work. The current readable prose size is already 96 kB, which means it requires splitting. Due to the US' propensity for attacking countries, sometimes multiple times, the article is going to continue growing. Splitting the article according to successful/unsuccessful actions will reduce the size by hiving off actions against Cuba, Venezuela and South Vietnam. However, there may be a better (and possibly more natural) way of splitting the article. Burrobert (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert: We could divide the article by continents or regions since we already have United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, so this would follow WP:CONSISTENT. Then sections in this article could provide a short summary on involvement in each region with a "main article" tag below each section title. WMrapids (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could also make titles by century, such as United States involvement in regime change in the 19th century, United States involvement in regime change in the 20th century, etc.--WMrapids (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Either of these would be a better solution. One of the problems with dividing by success is that countries would sometimes be moving from one article to another after a change in government. Burrobert (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Of course, there's always the option to remove original research in this article and to establish a definite bar, which would help to trim the article down. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's one problem with splitting; where arguably, this article should just be cut down, while splitting allows the POV to mushroom and be harder to maintain. Aside, I don't think by century, as suggested above, would be optimal, as that doesn't account for the natural breaks that occur more along the lines of, for example, pre- and post-WWII, or pre- and post-Cold War, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is an idea:

Parent article (United States involvement in regime change)

• A section can be created towards the beginning of the body that explains US motives chronologically (WWII, Cold War, etc.)
• The parent article can be divided into sections by region, with a linked placed to each regional child article
• Each section can provide a summary on each regional article

Child articles (United States involvement in regime change in region)

• Create child articles based by region from parent article
• Child articles can have sections based by time period, which aids with transfer.

@Burrobert, NoonIcarus, and SandyGeorgia: Let me know how you feel about this. WMrapids (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Premature and unnecessary until this article is cleaned up, and terms are defined. That is, splitting one POV mess of an article into multiple POV messes of articles creates ... well, obviously ... multiple messes. First get definitions and clean up this one, then decide whether a split is even necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I've already explained this above, but I disagree with divisions by region. There are more natural divisions by time (pre- World War II, post- World War II, Cold War, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: How do you recommend going forward with defining terms? WMrapids (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable suggestion @WMrapids:. Policy seems to prefer splitting of articles rather that removing content when an article becomes unwieldy. Burrobert (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

@CVDX and NoonIcarus: I would also like an explanation since NoonIcarus makes WP:COATRACK claims frequently. WMrapids (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@CVDX: 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

@Cambalachero, Ghazaalch, Mhorg, Lone Internaut, Entropyandvodka, TheTimesAreAChanging, Skornezy, Monochromemelo1, Jtbobwaysf, Darouet, C.J. Griffin, Cononsense, and Joaquinazo: 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: @ReyHahn, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Gog the Mild, The Banner, The Gnome, Pincrete, and Burrobert:, 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 | 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 ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  ActivelyDisinterest 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 ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆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, The_Gnome, 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)

I find it concerning that we have omitted the Ukraine from this list. It should, by rights, be included.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/four-years-of-ukraine-and-the-myths-of-maidan/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

https://truthout.org/articles/the-ukraine-mess-that-nuland-made/

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/joe-biden%E2%80%99s-pick-victoria-nuland-means-relations-russia-could-get-worse-176516 2600:1700:E010:A280:FC59:4FBB:FA38:ED84 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 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 | talk 17:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Possibly if more content is added, but not required at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆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 Jtbobwaysf. 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?

@Cambalachero, Ghazaalch, Mhorg, Lone Internaut, Entropyandvodka, TheTimesAreAChanging, Skornezy, Monochromemelo1, Jtbobwaysf, Darouet, C.J. Griffin, Cononsense, Joaquinazo, ReyHahn, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Gog the Mild, The Banner, The Gnome, Pincrete, and Burrobert:

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)

  NoonIcarus, 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 ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆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 Darouet'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 | talk 17:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. A quick google search, even Cato Institute, not exactly non-neutral, would answer the same. [1]. 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: @Cambalachero, Ghazaalch, Mhorg, Lone Internaut, Entropyandvodka, TheTimesAreAChanging, Skornezy, Monochromemelo1, Jtbobwaysf, Darouet, C.J. Griffin, Cononsense, Joaquinazo, ReyHahn, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Gog the Mild, The Banner, The Gnome, Pincrete, Burrobert, and WMrapids:— 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 Darouet it is widely reported and Trump officials bragged about their involvement. entropyandvodka 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 ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes NoonIcarus should have tagged me too. I had discussed his/her deletion of this section many times, e.g. [2]. As I remember, it was well-sourced and per Darouet and WMrapids --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...@Cambalachero, Ghazaalch, Mhorg, Lone Internaut, Entropyandvodka, TheTimesAreAChanging, Skornezy, Monochromemelo1, Jtbobwaysf, Darouet, C.J. Griffin, Cononsense, Joaquinazo, ReyHahn, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Gog the Mild, The Banner, The Gnome, Pincrete, Burrobert, and WMrapids: --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#2019–2022: Venezuela 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 | 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)

 Comment: @NoonIcarus, Darouet, ActivelyDisinterested, David Tornheim, Burrobert, Gog the Mild, The Gnome, Mhorg, Jtbobwaysf, Entropyandvodka, and CVDX: 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)

• WMrapids 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.[3] It wasn't just Trump establishing sanctions; Democrat Obama did too.[4]. 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)

2014 Ukraine

I added material about the U.S. support of the 2014 coup in Ukraine. NoonIcarus 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.

Walker, Shaun; Grytsenko, Oksana (26 January 2014). "Ukrainian president offers surprise concessions as protests turn violent". The Observer.

Ukraine's embattled president, Viktor Yanukovych, on Saturday night made a surprising and wide-ranging compromise offer to the protesters who have occupied his capital, promising to make an opposition leader prime minister, give amnesty to those involved in clashes with police and institute major constitutional reforms. The trio of politicians who have become the de facto leaders of the protests rejected the offer but said they were willing to negotiate. After several hours of discussions on Saturday, it was announced that Yanukovych had offered the prime minister's job to Arseny Yatsenyuk, of jailed former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko's Fatherland party. He also offered a deputy prime minister post to Vitali Klitschko, a former heavyweight boxer, and promised public debates with him.

And in this context Nuland and Pyatt discussed their preferences for Yatsenyuk and Klitschko going into a government under a president Yanukovych.

D'Anieri, Paul (2023). Ukraine and Russia. From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 216. doi:10.1017/9781009315555. ISBN 978-1-00-931554-8.

When Yanukovych, in January 2014, sought a compromise that would bring leaders of opposition parties into the government, the United States strove to get the opposition leaders to go along and was trying to bring in others, including the UN, to encourage this. The United States hoped that Arseniy Yatseniuk, rather than Vitaliy Klitschko, would become the new prime minister, apparently due to Yatseniuk’s greater economic expertise. It also wanted to keep the far-right Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok out of the government. Details of the US position were leaked (presumably by Russia) from a cell phone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. This was much the same deal that the EU foreign ministers sought to negotiate with Yanukovych after the February 18 violence. Despite Nuland’s expletive-laden complaints about the EU, and the tiff that her outburst provoked, the European Union and United States were advancing compatible positions that would have kept Yanukovych in power.

Popova, Maria; Shevel, Oxana (2024). Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 154. ISBN 978-1-5095-5737-0.

A phone call leaked in early February, where Nuland and US Ambassador Pyatt discuss preference for Yatseniuk over the other leaders of the opposition, Klitchko and Tyahnybok, to join a new Yanukovych cabinet on account of Yatseniuk’s perceived stronger economic and governing experience, shows American endorsement of Yanukovych’s continued rule, not a plan to end it.

--Jo1971 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Jo1971 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, [[5]]. 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)

Yanukovych was forced out of the country when a violent right wing minority militia supported by US NGOs and the US state dept (with Nuland famously handing out cookies at the Maidan) staged a coup that they wrapped in color revolution clothing. A govt building was taken over and Yanukovych took a helicopter out of the country. This was much more an actual insurrection than January 6 which was a riot. A government building was completely taken over with violence and bullets.

This is gone over by the Oliver Stone production "Ukraine on Fire," (directed by Ukrainian Igor Polatanok) which featured interviews by Oliver Stone and the late award-winning investigative journalist Robert Parry. (Parry was a progressive who once was briefly criticized decades ago for going too easy on or being too supportive of Bill Clinton). Parry later started the independent outlet Consortium News, a good outlet.

Some supportive public appearances and comments cheering for regime change by McCain, Lindsey Graham, Nuland and Biden were all shown in the middle of the film.

When people keep removing well known understandings of the Ukraine coup from even being mentioned, it makes Wikipedia look like it's run by US government editing on political topics, as has been a frequent criticism made by numerous independent journalists.

There is biased editing going on in some of the articles on noted indie journalists who discuss political analysis too.

The longer Wikipedia keeps pushing a narrative representing government interests instead of neutral views showing trends of what's been discussed, the less credibility the encyclopedia has. Pretending a particular militia hasn't been wearing Nazi tattoos is another ridiculous rewrite of history going on in Wikipedia and mainstream media. Disparaging journalists who have shown a light on some of these problems is another revolting development in the encyclopedia. Even one of Wikipedia's founders has commented publicly on this propaganda problem.

Emerman (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Your message violates WP:SOAPBOX and is not constructive, which is also is not acceptable in contentious topics which this thread is about. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Mediation between two opposing parties isn't "regime change", it would be an entirely different affair if the U.S. fomented the overthrow of Yanukovych, but the Nuland phone call, which is the key piece of textual evidence in play, does not at all prove that. Francoisealey (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do not really see any RS stating that the U.S. helped to overthrow the government. Of course, there were politicians who gave their support to the protesters (like McCain). But all of this can hardly be considered "regime change". Mellk (talk) 18:05, 12 August 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)

2001 Canada

[CIA_activies_in_afghanistan|funding of mujahadeen] resulted in rise of [al qaeda] resulted in terrorist attack on WTC 2001 which resulted in an attack on immigration policy and interfered internally with Canadas vision for its society. Before September 2001 Canada was a free place with democratic development geared towards a multicultural society (a stark contrast to its immidiate neighbour). Canada whose economy was depended by more than 60% on US exports had no choice to restrict free movement, incarcerate terrorism suspects and deport dissidents under US President George W. Bush's ultimatum whether they are "with or against us". They chose with. And thus the CIA indirectly destroyed Canada's multicultural society. Further as decades passed it became obvious that forgeign citizens could join the RCMP. FBI and DEA from the US were able to make arrests on Canadian sovereign soil. Thanks au revoir. Canada does not owe anyone an apology, US owes all immigrant and returnees from Canada an apology, but the damage is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.127.141 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposing Guatemala rewrites

During the Cold War section, there is an entry "1952: Guatemala" and an entry "1954: Guatemala". It seems wise to either merge categories or rewrite the 1954 to establish continuity with the 1952 section. Each section makes mention of similarly named CIA operations which may be confused with each other without understanding how they relate. Dweblenod (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "1968: Iraq" section

Skornezy added a section on "1968: Iraq," referring to a handful of marginal or WP:FRINGE sources alleging U.S. involvement in the 17 July Revolution. Despite noting that these claims are unsubstantiated and largely neglected by mainstream journalists and scholars, I attempted to edit Skornezy's text to reflect a more mainstream view that might allow it to be included here. However, Skornezy reverted almost all of my edits, including minor copyedits, in favor of his preferred version.

Consequently, since the two of us were not able to achieve a consensus for inclusion, I am removing the section as giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:REDFLAG assertions that the vast majority of full-length studies of American foreign policy, U.S. involvement in regime change, and, for that matter, the history of Iraq do not even mention. For example:

• Tripp, Charles R. H. (2002). A History of Iraq. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521529006. One of the standard histories of Iraq, Tripp 2002 does not contain a single mention of U.S. involvement.
• Hahn, Peter (2011). Missions Accomplished?: The United States and Iraq Since World War I. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195333381. One of (if not the only?) full-length studies of U.S.-Iraq relations from the founding of the Iraqi state to the present, Hahn 2011 does not contain a single mention of U.S. involvement.
• Gibson, Bryan R. (2015). Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 230. ISBN 978-1-137-48711-7. The most detailed full-length study of U.S.-Iraq relations during the time period in question (1958-1975), Gibson 2015, discusses the allegation but only in a footnote, concluding: "There is no evidence to substantiate claims that the United States was behind the coup."
• Wolfe-Hunnicutt, Brandon (2017). "Oil Sovereignty, American Foreign Policy, and the 1968 Coups in Iraq". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 28 (2). Routledge: 235–253. doi:10.1080/09592296.2017.1309882. S2CID 157328042. Skornezy's own primary source, Wolfe-Hunnicutt 2017, does not rule out U.S. involvement entirely, barring the release of additional information in the future, but acknowledges that there is currently "no evidence that these groups received official support from Washington." Wolfe-Hunnicutt writes: "Certain American business groups did look with favour on the coup that overthrew Yahya, but there is, as yet, no evidence that these groups received official support from Washington. On the contrary, the Lyndon Johnson Administration repeatedly rebuffed appeals from business groups calling for American support for the Ba'ath. ... [The coup] was not particularly good news from the perspective of the NSC and the White House. After the spectacular failure of the Ba'ath to establish a stable regime in 1963, many in Washington grew sceptical of the Party, particularly after a group of radical Ba'athists seized power in Syria in 1966 and aligned their regime with the Soviet Union. As the new group took power in Iraq, the NSC acknowledged that it was as yet unclear 'how radical' they would be, but worried that as Ba'athists, 'their tendencies will be towards moving Iraq even closer to [the Palestinian] Fatah, the Syrians, and the Soviets.'" In a footnote, which Skornezy treats as fact rather than speculation, Wolfe-Hunnicutt mentions that "the evidence ... suggests if the Central Intelligence Agency backed the coup, it did so ... without proper authorisation or larger policy co-ordination."

I could go on, but for now, due to time constraints, I will leave you with the observation that Skornezy's proposed revision fails to mention how, specifically, the U.S. supported the coup effort. This is not an accident: Even proponents of Skornezy's thesis do not claim to have specific evidence or knowledge regarding what the "U.S. involvement" entailed. Rather, they typically state something to the effect of "more research is needed on this question, as many U.S. government records from the time remain classified."

Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Our article is intended to reflect a high-level overview of "United States involvement in regime change," listing well-documented cases (e.g., 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, 2003 invasion of Iraq) as part of a broader discussion, but not regurgitating every mere allegation under the sun that anyone has ever raised about American foreign policy. For example, in a previous discussion editors declined to include allegations of a U.S. role in the Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity, citing that the allegations are not widely-substantiated in the secondary literature. Until "1968: Iraq" becomes accepted/documented in the academic literature to the point where it is generally discussed in high-level studies of "United States involvement in regime change" (and, indeed, we have a clearer idea of what is even being alleged!), it similarly should be omitted from our article. (If other editors disagree and if Skornezy can achieve consensus for his proposed revision here, then I will, of course, withdraw my challenge.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

These are not fringe theories, the main two sources I used are both authored by expert historians on Iraq and published in reputable academic institutions:

• Avneri, Netanel (2015). "The Iraqi Coups of July 1968 and the American Connection". Middle Eastern Studies. 51 (4): 649–663. ISSN 0026-3206.
• Wolfe-Hunnicutt, Brandon (2017). "Oil Sovereignty, American Foreign Policy, and the 1968 Coups in Iraq". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 28 (2). Routledge: 235–253. doi:10.1080/09592296.2017.1309882. S2CID 157328042.

(Unless otherwise cited, I'll be referencing from these two)

I believe you are misquoting Wolfe-Hunnicutt. The two sources compliment each other, as stated by Wolfe-Hunnicutt himself: "Both Avneri and myself see a significant American role in the events that brought the Ba'th to power. However, whereas Avneri sees consistent US support for the Ba'th, I focus on the divisions among policymakers and find that only one faction of the US government supported the coup. The more dominant faction within the Lyndon Johnson administration refused to accommodate the new regimes for fear of the threat that it might pose to Israel." I believe these nuances are adequately elaborated on in the article, and anyone can see it for themselves.

Therefore, because of these divisions, "The evidence presented in [Wolfe-Hunnicutt's] analysis suggests that if the Central Intelligence Agency backed the coup, it did so as what Democratic Representative Otis G. Pike described as a "rogue elephant"—meaning an agency operating without proper authorisation or larger policy co-ordination."

Meanwhile, Avneri (2015) documents that "Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Eugene Rostow heard from Robert Anderson, former Secretary of the Treasury (1957-61), to the effect that 'an Iraqi contact with high-level connections in the new government', Luṭfi al-'Ubaydi, was sent by 'the new Iraqi Government. . .to see him and discuss his sulphur deal'. 'Ubaydi also told him that the new government was 'anxious' to resume relations. Anderson, who "is described in the scholarly literature a 'CIA trouble-shooter,'" took "the lead in Iraqi-American commercial relations' since the overthrow of Qasim and the rise of the first Ba'th administration in 1963." While Ubaydi "is described in the scholarly literature as 'an Iraqi lawyer and politico with many friends within the Ba'th party,' ... [as well as] 'an economic advisor and a close friend' of President Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr.

Avneri establishes that "there was continuous contact between [Anderson] and the State Department" while the latter was liasing with Ubaydi—"an emissary of the regime that overthrew 'Arif." The Ba'ath also "sought to share its secretly made decisions about Yahya's fate and the oil contract with France with the State Department through the medium of Anderson," which Avneri states gives a boost to the claim of American involvement in the coup, and even provides an allegation/admission by one of the coup's plotters, Abdul Razzaq an-Naif, who stated in his memoirs that "for the 1968 coup you must look to Washington." Avneri writes that "Washington had a good reason to encourage the overthrow of the [Iraq's] government," and that "it is likely that the desire to overthrow the [Iraqi] government was seen in Washington as more important than the subsequent establishment of a more moderate regime."

We cite sources based on what they say, not on what they don't say. Because Tripp (2002) and Hahn (2011) do not comment on U.S. involvement in their respective books, TheTimesAreAChanging infers from this absence in commentary that this "proves" that U.S. involvement in the coup is a "fringe" theory. Not only is this an appeal to ignorance fallacy, since we don't know Tripp or Hahn's views on U.S. involvement because they haven't written or commented about it, but it's also probably a form of original research. According to WP:FRINGE, "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner," i.e., the majority of reliable sources must explicitly challenge the views of reliable sources theorising U.S. involvement. Besides, Avneri and Wolfe-Hunnicutt's analyses are based on "recently declassified US State Department records," documents that were likely not available to Tripp and Hahn at the time when they each wrote their books.

Gibson (2015), the only source TheTimesAreAChanging provided that directly disputed U.S. involvement, dedicates a single sentence in a footnote to say that "There is no evidence to substantiate claims that the United States was behind the coup." Of course, I welcomed this and included it in the article myself, however a single sentence in a footnote is not nearly enough to paint Wolfe-Hunnicutt and Avneri's analyses as "fringe." Although not in relation to the 1968 coup, but regarding a previous Iraqi Ba'athist coup in 1963, Gibson—who does not believe the US helped the Ba'ath overthrow overthrow Iraq's government in 1963—admits that "It is accepted among scholars that the CIA ... assisted the Ba'th Party in its overthrow of [Iraq's] regime." If anything Gibson ought to be considered "fringe" by his own admission!

To summarise the section's evidence, all citing academic sources:

• Two historians on Iraq who "Both ... see a significant American role in the events that brought the Ba'th to power."
• Contemporary documents that report that there were "strong rumors" in Iraq that "Washington was behind the coup" when it occurred, and that "Several ministers, especially the Prime Minister were known to be 'pro-American.'"
• A "CIA trouble-shooter." and former U.S. Treasury Secretary who maintained "continuous contact" with both the U.S. State Department and "an emissary of the regime that overthrew 'Arif" with "many friends within the Ba'th party," including coup leader Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr. The new Ba'athist regime even relayed "its secretly made decisions" to this "CIA trouble-shooter" to pass on the State Department.
• An admission/allegation from one of the coup plotters that the U.S. was indeed involved in the coup: "for the 1968 coup you must look to Washington."

As an aside, many of the Ba'athists who participated in the 1968 coup also participated in the previous Iraqi Ba'athist coup of 1963, including coup leaders al-Bakr and Salih Mahdi Ammash; the 1963 coup is documented by the majority of scholars, including Wolfe-Hunnicutt, to have occurred with U.S. backing. Regarding 1963, Wolfe-Hunnicutt, citing declassified documents, establishes that the Kennedy Administration viewed Ammash as an "asset." Similarly, some evidence indicates that Saddam, who was living in Egypt before and during the 1963 coup, was "in frequent contact with US officials and intelligence agents" during his exile. Skornezy (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't find Skornezy's arguments convincing, but I will let any page-watchers weigh in on whether they feel these allegations merit inclusion in the main article on "United States involvement in regime change" based on the arguments presented.

To briefly address an apparent misunderstanding of policy on Skornezy's part, original research is perfectly permissible on talk pages, although not in article space. Editors are allowed to consider if the vast majority of the literature on both the political history of Iraq and U.S. foreign relations excludes the theory of U.S. involvement in the 1968 Ba'thist coup when making decisions of editorial discretion and due weight; verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient, basis for inclusion.

The declassified documents that I have seen tend to disprove U.S. involvement or support of the coup, not that this can be stated in article space, but if more documents are being released and fresh arguments made by scholars that may become widely-accepted in the future, then perhaps Wikipedia should err on the side of caution and wait for that scholarly debate to play out before including the content in the high-level article on "United States involvement in regime change".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, but you did try to do include Tripp's lack of commentary in this edit. It's faulty logic and original research.

That FRUS document is "National Security Council member John Foster’s initial intelligence assessment." However, the American Embassy at Beirut—the principle source of political information on Iraq after the closure of the Baghdad Embassy during the June 1967 War—was much more optimistic" than Foster. Similarly, "As an unofficial emissary of the government, 'Ubaydi gave Anderson several messages that were not related to sulphur which indicated an Iraqi desire for cooperation with Washington" These are the "divisions among policymakers" that Wolfe-Hunnicutt was alluding to.

This aspect of Iraq's historiography, especially from the 1920s to just before the Iran-Iraq War, is relatively unstudied. For example, "Scholars are only beginning to uncover the extent to which the United States was involved in organizing the [1963] coup." The fact that we have two expert historians on Iraq who "Both ... see a significant American role in the events that brought the Ba'th to power" is significant and corroborates some of the other sources:

• Professor of Political Science: Ismael, Tareq Y.; Ismael, Jacqueline S. (2015). Iraq in the Twenty-First Century: Regime Change and the Making of a Failed State. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-56758-5.

With further help from the US the Ba'th returned to power in 1968.

• Journalist: Aburish, Said (2001). Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge. Bloomsbury. p. 73. ISBN 0-7475-4903-6.

With a measure of justification, the writer Hassan Al Said cites the reputable French newspaper Le Monde and says that 'The change [in Iraq] was not for internal reasons only. Iraqi opposition leader Ahmad Chalabi describes the 1968 coup as the second stage of CIA-Ba'ath cooperation. The urbane Adnan Pachachi uses measured words to describe what might have happened: "I don’t know of outside involvement, but perhaps it happened. The regime of Prime Minister Taher Yahya was pro-Nasser and unpopular with the West. It would make sense." The eminent historian Hanna Batatu quotes President Abdel Rahman Aref as speaking of the involvement of 'non-Iraqi hands'. The background to all these statements is considerable. [...] But the more important connection, according to Ahmad Chalabi, came out of the meeting between Anderson and Bakr, which was arranged by Parker and Obeidi one year before the coup and at which oil and sulphur were discussed. These contacts followed what happened in 1966, when Saddam wrote a letter to the US Consulate in Basra asking for their help in overthrowing the government. [...] Years later, in his memoirs, Nayyef himself supported the allegation of the CIA involvement when he clearly stated '... for the 1968 coup you must look to Washington'. The question is not whether the CIA was involved, for America welcomed this coup as well; the question is how involved it was and with whom.

• Journalist: Lando, Barry (2010). Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, From Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush. Doubleday Canada. p. 32. ISBN 9780385672887.

With this third attempt, the Baath took control of Iraq for good. There is evidence that, once again the U.S. was involved.

• Journalist: Campbell, Deborah (2016). A Disappearance in Damascus: A Story of Friendship and Survival in the Shadow of War. Knopf Canada. p. 287. ISBN 9780345809315.

The follow-up 1968 coup that brought Saddam Hussein closer to ultimate power was also backed by the CIA.

• U.S. National Security Council member during the coup: Morris, Roger (March 14, 2003). "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making". The New York Times.

In 1968, after yet another coup, the Baathist general Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr seized control, bringing to the threshold of power his kinsman, Saddam Hussein. Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard C.I.A. officers -- including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time -- speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists.

Skornezy (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Skornezy, Said Aburish is a questionable source who has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, and I'm sure you don't need me to point out that his source, Ahmed Chalabi, has very little credibility.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And Daniel Pipes, the source you cited to "disprove" Aburish, once promoted conspiracy theories about President Obama being Muslim; has been accused of "selectivity and distortion"; and has been cited as a having spent "decades promoting anti-Muslim tropes and has financed numerous activists and organizations that spread misinformation about Muslims and Islam."

Avneri 2015 favourably cites Aburish; critiqued or not, there is no reason why Wikipedia should not consider Aburish to be a reliable source provided attribution is made for possibly contentious analysis. Besides, I'm not currently advocating for his inclusion in this article. Skornezy (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)