Talk:Covert United States foreign regime change actions/Archive 1

message: This article is relevant, however needs some attention to the language used. Encyclopedic articles need to have a impartial tone to the writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.240.42 (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2007
I agree.  From the article:
"especially in light of our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein."[16]"
The "our" makes it clear that the writing is from a personal/collective position.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjcarder (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal 

message: Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability says:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.The material on the so far unproven allegations made by Hugo Chavez in particular lack reliable sources. One broken external link to Counterpunch, a highly partisan magazine, does not count as a valid reference. It is especially important for articles on highly contentious issues to be thoroughly referenced. Sections on claims and allegations must be neutral and represent all major viewpoints. --Folantin 11:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop adding controversial content without reliable sources

message: The CIA is alleged to have sponsored regime change of the following, mostly democratically-elected, governments:
Egypt 1952
Iran (Mossadegh Government) 1953
Guatamala (Arbenz Government) 1953/4
Korea 1960, 1961
(Cuba 1961)
Laos 1960
Zaire 1960
Dominican Republic 1963
Vietnam 1963
Brazil 1964
Bolivia 1964, 1971
Indonesia 1965
Ghana 1966
Greece 1967
Cambodia 1970
Chile 1973
signed: Best wishes, Travb (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from [[CIA controversies]]

message: For info on the dispute, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA sponsored regime change.  Many participants recognized that POV is an issue in this article. Mangojuicetalk 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: All Wikipedia articles are required to use reliable sources. Any external links have to abide by this policy too and the onus is on those who add them to justify their inclusion. Sources which are clearly self-published personal opinion pieces found on the Web fail these criteria. Sources which spell Norodom Sihanouk as "Sahounek" and blame Radio Free Europe for the bloodshed of the Soviet invasion of Hungary - to mention only a few examples- are not trustworthy. 
Please will someone try to improve this article by using reliable, scholarly sources and following Wikipedia's guidelines on a neutral point of view. If you do your homework, there is plenty you can legitimately say about the CIA's activities in Iran in the 50s, for instance. 
This article was nominated for deletion four months ago. It survived with a "no consensus" vote and the closing admin commented: "The result was no consensus. I call upon those who said things like 'keep and rewrite' or 'keep, but fix POV' to actually do it, or I'm sure we'll see the article back here in a couple of months." I've had this page watchlisted since then and the admins words have obviously not been heeded. If this page gets any worse, I will have no hesitation in nominating it for deletion again. --Folantin 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: The title of the article should be changed because it is too restrictive. It includes "CIA", so other coups sponsored by the senior US officials, such as possibly the 2002 coup against the democratically-elected government of Venezuela may have to be excluded? How about "US-sponsored regime change"?--NYCJosh 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Isn't the "Liberation of Iraq" USA sponsored regime change? The title should make it clear, that this is about covert action. How about Allegations of US-sponsored regime change? -- Petri Krohn 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. I appreciate the point that the article should be restricted to "Secret US-sponsored regime change operations"--how is that for a title? I would be happy with "Covert..." instead of "Secret..." too. "Allegations" is generally un-encyclopedic according to WP rules and less direct, and departs more from the current spirit of the title.--NYCJosh 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since no objections or further comments have been received I am changing the title per above. The focus should not be restricted to the acts of a singly US agency but on the acts of the US govt.--NYCJosh 03:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the article to Covert U.S. regime change actions, we should avoid CAPS in article names. -- Petri Krohn 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --NYCJosh 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See the given source. This is not controversial, your claim is.Ultramarine 01:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It was stated in secret CIA documents and recorded discussions before the coup.Ultramarine 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you care to cite a source "in secret CIA documents"?  BTW, there is nothing "controversial" about "my" claims regarding Guatemala. The declassified U.S. documentary evidence is unambiguous on the major contours. Any decent college survey course on U.S. post-WWII history will have it. --NYCJosh 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read the equivalent to an entire book on this. See Ultramarine 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US-sponsored regime change

message: I removed this section today:
The United States support is alleged to have contributed to the 5 Ocotober Revolution in Serbia which removed the dictator Slobodan Milošević and installed a democratic government.
The one source cited is a draft of an unpublished academic manuscript. I am unclear as to the status of such as a RS. In any event, while the source on p.14-15 dicusses U.S. funding for the opposition movement in Serbia through USAID and NGOs, there NO discussion of COVERT funding or involvement.--NYCJosh 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia 

message: Someone reverted me, please read WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to include all kind of accusations, especially when not presented with any shred of evidence. Since this an article about covert action, most of stuff is not known for years after the event, as the documentary evidence will be lacking. See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Intangible2.0 12:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "someone" didn't revert your attempts to delete sections you didn't like; I did. If some kook claims a conspiracy, that's marginal. When the leader of a nation accuses the US of trying to subvert his rule, this is news. I don't happen to have an opinion on whether these claims are true, and I don't need one, but anyone can see that none of them are "marginal". ThAtSo 12:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's deal with the Guatemala bit first, why did you revert me there? The text says "In 1993 the CIA helped in overthrowing Jorge Serrano Elías". The currently cited source does not support this claim, the source only talks about a liaison relationship between CIA and D2, not that the CIA was an agent in reverting Serrano's auto coup. Intangible2.0 14:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: " The CIA's liaison relationship with the Guatemalan services also benefited US interests by enlisting the assistance of Guatemala's primary intelligence and security service--the army's directorate of intelligence (D-2)--in areas such as reversing the "auto-coup" of 1993". Also mentioned elsewhere in the report.Ultramarine 14:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the only bit remotely talking about regime change in that source, but it makes no qualifications. The Clinton administration suspended a $17 million loan to Guatemala after Serrano's power grab, which was an overt and direct pressure. There was no regime change, because Serrano's auto coup failed on itself (the Guatemalan army failed to back him). Intangible2.0 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia does not decide the truth of history. We report different views, as per NPOV.Ultramarine 15:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but the burden lies with the editor who wants this material added to prove that these views are not marginal or biased. I wouldn't have a problem moving this material to History_of_Equatorial_Guinea#1990s-2000s, or a possible Wonga Coup article, but for this article, these views are marginal imho. Intangible2.0 18:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The views of the leader of a nation cited in CNN are not less notable than the views of a writer publishing an opinion piece in the Asia Times. Which are cited many times in the article.Ultramarine 20:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  marginal claims 

message: I think this information is critical in an article about US covert foreign policy, since it is a direct consequence of the US intervention. Beneficiaries of the US training, using information, organization and funding of the US, go on to participate in attacks the US. It is a direct outcome of the US action. Outcomes of the action are part of the artilce. Also, the last word of the title of the article is "Actions," so the subject of the article is not just the intended regime change but the action as a whole. Editors are welcome to weigh in.--NYCJosh 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument for inclusion

message: *Include text, this is relevant. -- Petri Krohn 17:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments of other editors

message: I removed the part about how the US claims to favor democracies, promote security, saying they are best for bussiness, most stable, and don't go to war with each other. The reason I removed this was because it was not sufficently tied to the articles topic: covert regime change. If we have a source that talks about that in the context of these illegal US actions against other governments, that would be fine. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in this article, and is somewhat off topic. These claims of the US are interesting, but they are not comments about its regime change actions, which include both dictatorships and democracies. The other part, a rationalization of regime change, is perfect, and deserves its own section. The intro was severely bloated.Giovanni33 18:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are certainly part of official current US policy and for npov it is important to mention the distinction between democracies and nondemocracies. This is an important background for the article. I personally do not argue against that the US may have an unofficial policy of regime changes in order to create democracies, since these almost always align more or less with US interests.Ultramarine 09:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true that this is official US policy, but the US has many official policies, so what? My problem is that what does this US policy have to do with the topic of this article--Covert US regime change actions? Unless you have a souce that ties these US policies to this subject, its off topic.Giovanni33 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making a democracy from a nondemocracy is certainly an exmple of a dramatic regime change.Ultramarine 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US has not done this, nor do the claims you want to add state this as the goal. It never mentions regime change or any covert action targeting only non-democracies with the aim of making them democracies. If it did, then it would fit here. But instead all you are doing is citing its ostensive policies saying it favors democracies (out of context from any regime change), and that those are best for bussiness, as they dont go to war with each other, and it promotes security, etc. All off topic without these statements being connected to or even in the same context of these illegal covert actions to overthrow other governments.Giovanni33 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the US have helped create numerous democracies through regime change: the whole of Eastern Europe who promptly went from being deadly enemies to joining NATO. If looking at wars we can mention Germany, Italy, and Japan who also went from enemies to stable militarily allied democracies. More recently, the US have been accused of causing the Color Revolutions. You may find this article from the archconservative Heritage Foundation interesting: .Ultramarine 23:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your talking about WW2, which is true, regime changes occured as a result, but again, this article is about covert, illegal, regime changes--not a legally declared war. Overt regime change is when the US goes in and topples of government it doenst like, covertly, (denying it is doing so), and putting in its place another government. When has it done this, and installed a democracy, instead of a dictatorship (often overthrowing a democracy!). Again, your sources would be valid if they talked about the actual subject of this article: covert US regime change actions. Those policies you cite dont mention regime change, and to make it about regime change is OR.Giovanni33 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: section removed

message: Alexis Debat's credibility has been discussed, in particular after having made a false interview of Barack Obama in the magazine Politique internationale. See Une fausse interview d'Obama dans Politique internationale by Pascal Riché in Rue 89. I am therefore removing him as he is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tazmaniacs 11:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexis Debat, a reliable source? 

message: Repeated POV fanaticism. Ultramarine seeks to rewrite history. Everyone should look closely at any of his edits. Nearly 100% are done to promote his extreme political views. He selectively quotes wikipedia regulations, only when such are used in his favor, in bad faith. Please cite numerous sources if you write anything objectionable to a fanatical conservative, otherwise he will delete it. And be sure to add "opposing views" however absurd to any fact contrary to his worldview.
67.58.254.68 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban Ultramarine  from editing this page