Talk:Regime change

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


To contribute to this article I will discuss international explanations for democratization. I will expand on the foreign imposed regime change section of the article but explaining how the use of sanctions and force can result in regime change . I will also explain Gunitsky’s typology on diffusion. I will also including a section on autocritization, focusing on the work of Bermeo. Carter925 (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carter925 I think your plan for contribution is very clear, it is good you are focusing on a section and expanding on it with good literature, you have a clear direction. Wmair00 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This says nothing about the international legal aspects of the topic (that to work towards a stated aim of overthrowing the government of a soverign nation is contrary to international law). --Daniel C. Boyer

Because, after all,
Regime change is a euphemism for the overthrow, either peaceful or via military coup d'etat, of a leader or government (regime) by another force.
The term was popularized by American President George W. Bush, in reference to Saddam Hussein's regime.
is too NPOV as it stands. --Calieber 20:07, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

And shouldn't it be the "policy" some other nation or nation, or entity or entities, "to support efforts to remove the regime headed by George W. Bush from power in the United States and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime?" --Daniel C. Boyer

credit the administration with sincerely seeking the good of the Iraqi people - yeah, those Baghdad firemen got some really keen fusible nylon T-shirts out of it - "The US wrecked my country and I all I got was this lousy T-shirt" - when has the US ever sought the good of the locals? - including the Kurds - although the admin promised Turkey before the war the Kurds would gain nothing - as well as seeking stablity in the region - even though some yahoo by the name of George H. W. Bush said c1998 that removing Saddam would destabilise the area... sorry to rant, but what kinda fool seriously thought it'd turn out any different than it has?

The kind who grew up as billionaire's sons surrounded by boot licking yes-men who always bailed them out and swept problems under the rug, and consequently these spoiled rich kids have never faced any consequences of their own failures and think that they can talk their way out of anything. Sorry to rant, but you're 100% right. -- Noclevername 07:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any reason why all references to regime change are typed in italics (like this: regime change)? Gaurav 08:22, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding some non-US examples of regime change, such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

It would, since the lack thereof means that the article doesn't have global perspective or whateveritscalled. -Fsotrain09 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regime change is actually a recurring occurrence throughout history. Any sort of conquest is often "an external overthrow of government." Sargon of Agade overthrew Lugal-zaggesi's regime in the 3rd millennium B.C.E. So are we making a distinction with this from regular old conquests? Most of the American regime changes are sort of along the lines of "replacing regimes unfavourable to our country's interests," which isn't the sort of rationale conquerors use. Brutannica 03:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would go as far as saying that no western government has ever sought the good of the people when changing any other countries government, unless we are talking about the people in the country whom is administering the change. --SprSynJn 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this article even be here at all? It talks about "regime change" as if it is a recognized name for a general phenomenon in international relations, when in fact, AFAICT, it is just the phrase used by the Bush administration for what he wanted to see in Iraq. Are there any scholarly works about the general phenomenon of "regime change", with that name? Otherwise this entire article is original research.

I think a neutral and accurate description would be to modify the sentence criticized above as follows:

Regime change refers to the replacement of one leader or government (regime) by another.
The term was popularized by American President George W. Bush, in reference to Saddam Hussein's regime, and U.S. plans to affect such a change.

But this would arguably be original research too. --Mark Foskey 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm flagging it as original research. Consider:

It can be argued that the idea of overthrowing a government from the outside and replacing it with a new one built "from scratch" traces back to the Potsdam Agreement, which suggested post-World War II designs for Germany but became largely irrelevant for the era of the Cold War.[1]

"It can be argued" is a red flag for original research/analysis. Who made that argument? The citation makes no reference to the Potsdam Agreement.

A coup is regime change[edit]

I don't understand why this article is focussed on regime change via external forces. A coup is regime change, by definition! (Google "regime change" coup. While many of the hits are about externally-driven revolution, many correctly use the term regime change to refer to the changing of a regime by internal means.)

I intend to put some factual structure into this article! Starting... real soon now.

Don't be put off by misunderstanding what the US government's been on about throughout the noughties. They have actually been using the term correctly ("our desired outcome is regime change in Iraq...") despite what whoever wrote this article seems to think. (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and so is revolution, restructuring, and reconstruction following a failed state! (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'm done for the moment. (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need better citation on use of term since 1925[edit]

The second sentence of the article claims that "use of the term [regime change] dates to at least 1925." The citation is merely a link to the Oxford English Dictionary website, not to a specific article. Access to the definition is restricted to subscribers. Perhaps this is new, but it renders the citation useless for most readers.

Can someone provide a better citation? If not, i fear that we should remove the claim. That would be a shame, as it's interesting, but it should be verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgllama (talkcontribs) 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replaced the reference with a pointer to the Los Angeles Times article which the OED cites. I cannot find that LA Times archives are available on-line, however.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General/medical use[edit]

I'm familiar with the term "regime change" as any change that would change the environment of a studied phenomenon without direct effect on the phenomenom itself. For example in medical usage (IRC) a regime change might change the balance of drugs a patient is on in an attempt to improve poor response.

It seems to me that the intro to the article is essentially US-centric and it is taking a phrase in regular use in British English and mis-specialising it for American. (I'm a native English speaker, being English.) Comments? (BTW I don't read my talk page, email

Jbowler (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (that's four ~, or whatever the rune is, the UI sucks)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Regime change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular use[edit]

When your leader is a penis, "Regime change through penectomy" is a funny joke. (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit proposal "Internal regime change"[edit]

I plan to expand and improve the subheading "Internal regime change". I intend to do this by looking at multiple forms of internal regime change, making a distinction between change led by the elite or by the masses, and violent or non-violent. Additionally, I will elaborate on these different forms by providing examples (or matching the existing examples) and look at the outcomes of internal regime change. To improve the overall quality of the article, I will add references to reliable sources. Tips are always welcome! Nsanorbart (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

five reasons government change[edit]

five reasons government change — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Forcible or coercive?'[edit]

Article begins by defining regime chanfe as 'forcible or coercive' but then includes many references to states meddling in overseas elections. How is this 'forcible or coercive'? Crawiki (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

State reconstruction vs regime change[edit]

State reconstruction is partly forcible (defeated troops/insurgents must be disarmed and demobilised) and partly not(creation of new judiciary, police, civil service, executive etc), and very obviously, elections cannot be 'forcible' or theyre invalid. So is state reconstruction a separate topic requiring a separate article? Crawiki (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]