Template talk:Coup d'état/Archive 1

Archive 1

TfD

I like the idea, but the list would be too long for a template. Besides, it already exist as un article: List of coups d'état and coup attempts. I suggest deletion. 82.227.162.140 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't. The only thing I suggest is dividing into 2 templates: successful and attempted. СЛУЖБА (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Turkey

(Adapted from Talk:Self-Coup) 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt discusses allegations of it being a self coup. I think that these allegations make the incident noteworthy enough to be flagged as a self coup on this list and that excluding that flag would reduce the helpfulness of this template. The article itself will clarify if someone is looking for the actual details but as an overview the flag should be there, does anyone disagree? This is mostly @185.20.165.182: Lalichii (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

What next in Wikipedia? Regarding 9/11 as inside job? Obama as founder of ISIL? It's ridicilous and stupid equally. Kavas (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

2021 USA coup

The following discussion 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.

---

Done, discussion concluded, do not editVanny089 (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC) There's several reliable sources that this was not a coup, more of a riot. However, very contentious so I don't intend to debate. Some may feel that not supporting an edit of "coup" means support of Trump. That is not true.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/09/was-us-capitol-riot-really-coup-heres-why-definitions-matter/%3FoutputType%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwiBjZrm8o_uAhWnJzQIHecvChMQFjAFegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw28No0jI0L_ks0zpve1Qz61&ampcf=1

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/01/not-coup/171229/

https://www.wktv.com/templates/AMP%3fcontentID=573559201

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/why-this-wasnt-a-coup-capitol-2020-election-trump/

• Support, not a coup does not imply support for riotVanny089 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Done and concluded Vanny089 (talk)

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.

Post discussion comment

The following discussion 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.

---

Not sure this was the best place to have this discussion. Only one person participated. I was completely unaware of it. It might have been better to have it on the main storming of the US Capitol talk page. And there are reliable sources that disagree, and clarify that it is a self-coup, which would still go on this template. —-https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/01/08/no-its-not-a-coup-its-a-failed-self-coup-that-will-undermine-us-leadership-and-democracy-worldwide/amp/ —-Beneficii (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

no, that would be canvassing and illegal under WP rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanny089 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment I want to respond on what was said above. For transparency sake, @Beneficii: posted a question on the help desk here asking if this discussion should be moved. I responded by saying that the discussion about this template should take place here. However, I think it is not canvassing to put a Template:Please see notification on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol as a similar discussion is taking place there and editors may also want to discuss that topic here. @Vanny089: would you be OK with me posting that notice on the talk page? Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You should discuss first not go against a settled discussion. Starting a new discussion is ok, though. Revert back to the settled version pending a discussion .

• oppose, not a coup. No evidence of a coup. Early reports of coordination are being retracted by the FBI. Even impeachment article don't call it a coup. Just like we don't call it a nuclear war even though the man with the fur hat and horns theoretically could have taken over, then asked for the nuclear codes, then the Pentagon would voluntarily give it to him....just fantasy. Vanny089 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion is not dependent on us having evidence for it being a coup, its dependent on reliable sources characterizing it as a coup. It is my opinion that the status of coup should be deferred to the actual article on the event, otherwise it will be necessary for us to source each and every event in the template. That said, here is a list of reputable sources describing the event as a coup . Lalichi (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, coup As above, if the event's wiki page describes it as a coup then it should be included. If it is your strong belief that it is not a coup, get it changed on the actual article instead of the template which lists coups. Lalichi (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia custom, Other Crap Exist. It may be WP:CRAP. Vanny089 (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, coup For the reasons stated above.—-Beneficii (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Once more, Wikipedia discussions is not about voting. If the only reason to write is to express support or oppose, without adding nothing, that goes against the Wikipedia spirit. Wikipedia works because of building consensus, and that is critical to a neutral point of view. --Robertiki (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• comment, no evidence a coup. I just looked at the BBC, CNN, and ABC (USA) for articles written this week. NONE of them refer to it as a coup. For example, today's story from the BBC says this

The FBI is investigating whether a 22-year-old woman stole a laptop or hard drive from Nancy Pelosi's office during the riots at the US Capitol, intending to sell it to Russian intelligence.

Reliable sources are not 100% correct 100% of the time. Reliable sources have stopped calling it a coup. Vanny089 (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, coup. There are many serious sources telling that the capitol riot was well planned in advance and can be described an attempted coup by the president, which involved also some members of his administration (i.e the Pentagon boss was recently installed by him and refused to send the National guard in time) and possibly some Congress members. For example that one by Ruth Ben-Ghiat:

So, and then we have the age of military coups. And we know that Trump was investigating using the regular armed forces, before General Milley put a stop to that. And so he went with these extremists. But the other thing — which, as we see, are not only extremists, but people inside our institutions.

And of course this is under investigation [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reliable sources do not support this assertion at all. A cursory review of the selection of articles at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 12 § Sources describing as "coup attempt" reveals many opinion sources and quotes being passed as "evidence" – what we need is outlets using the term in their "news voice". Virtually no major source (BBC, WashPo, NYTimes, ABC, NBC, etc.) is using the term in its straight coverage, instead using other words like "riot", "insurrection", etc. — Goszei (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• How come? Your link to discussion Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 12 § Sources describing as "coup attempt" provides a large number of mainstream sources (under title "Generally reliable sources") which did call it a "coup" or "attempted coup". That includes CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, Haaretz, The Times, WaPo, and many others. Yes, many other publications call it also "insurrection" or "riot". Hence it can be reasonably assigned to all these categories. My very best wishes (talk)

The context is important. Take a look at some of the recent results returned by the WP:RSSE (search Capitol "coup" after:2021-1-5) There are lots of pieces now like "It Wasn’t Strictly a Coup Attempt. But It’s Not Over, Either. from the NYTimes, Was the U.S. Capitol riot really a coup? Here’s why definitions matter: Calling this a coup obscures important dynamics. from WashPo. Very few to no sources have moved towards around "coup" as a regular descriptor that they can use in their "newsvoice". In fact, some have moved away: I noticed one of the WashPo links quoted as saying "violent coup" on that talk page edited the story to now say "violent rioting" [2]. — Goszei (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This here describes it as a self-coup, as did the Brookings article linked above: [3] Self-coups are covered by this template, and is perhaps a more obscure term.—Beneficii (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is also good, as it describes what political scientists, experts in the field, are calling it: a self-coup, which I don’t need to remind you is covered by this template. [4] --Beneficii (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at this more scholarly source right here, it appears that the self-coup began at least in the election 2020 and arguably earlier. so Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election may be the article that deserves to be on this template.

Here's the source: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/01/marcum-simpson-self-coup-reconciliation/

FYI, in my search, I have not seen any reliable source that specifically denies this was a self-coup. Even this Politifact article gave a nod to the possibility it was, here: [5]

These actions might fall into the category of self-coups, in which the leader strong-arms other branches of government to entrench power.

--Beneficii (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Good points, I fully agree. Sure that was an attempted self-coup, simply based on facts described in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. No one can really dispute them. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Vote ended above but I am adding a comment. Not a coup I just saw this on CNN so I came to Wikipedia to see what Wikipedia is saying. Looks like the Biden Administration has decided that it was not a coup because if it were, then the US government would not be able to conduct government spending. I am very surprised.

This appears to be about Myanmar, not the USA
Washington (CNN)The Biden administration is having an internal debate over whether to call the military takeover in Myanmar a coup, according to a State Department official and an administration official. Officially declaring it a coup, which the administration has not yet done in any of their statements on the matter, would legally bind the US to cut off foreign assistance to the country.

Besides, the BBC is not calling it a coup. No or few news sources are especially by late January and early February. See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55866716 Dinkdull (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is complicated: I think this is becoming like the 2020 Nashville bombing, where the classification of both equally horrendous events have been debated. The storming of the Capitol seems to combine elements of coup d'états, domestic terror attacks, riots, and sieges. If we’re still stuck on what to call it, I think we will go by what the BBC or Reuters says. It is easy to get taken in by persuasive media: I know I have, and it is challenging to resist it. --Minoa (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think academic sources in the field of political and social science should carry the greatest weight, particularly if they are reliable secondary sources.--Beneficii (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Coup d'Etat Project, which is run by the University of Illinois's Cline Center, says it's a coup and that it meets 3 of the 5 criteria they specify, which is enough to meet the definition. However, they did note that some social scientists require a coup to originate from within the government, which would possibly render one of the criteria null.

This is the link.[6]

Thanks to the person who posted it in the Wikipedia article on this topic.--Beneficii (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, they want to wait for evidence of executive branch involvement before calling it an auto-coup/self-coup.-Beneficii (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, per Self-coup it seems natural. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as multiple reliable sources describe it as a self-coup WhisperToMe (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

For sake of clarity, a list of W:RS-compliant sources at the top of the page would be helpful if the decision is for inclusion. Again, it feels like a mixture of coup d'états, domestic terror attacks, riots, and sieges, but still disgusting due to the fact that people died as a result of it. --Minoa (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

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.