Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of coups and coup attempts: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:45, 12 June 2022 editNewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,732 edits →RFC: Concerns about "attempted coup"← Previous edit Revision as of 19:47, 12 June 2022 edit undoHerostratus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,215 edits →RFC: Concerns about "attempted coup": typoNext edit →
Line 90: Line 90:
:I think it's creep to include debatable events in the main line. Even if the body text gives both sides, bulleted placement in the main line conveys a message and an opinion. :I think it's creep to include debatable events in the main line. Even if the body text gives both sides, bulleted placement in the main line conveys a message and an opinion.


:I want to hear what Kevin McCarthy, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and other people of former or current high office have to say. The they almost all say "coup", then we can too. I haven't heard that yet. My ''personal'' opinion of these people is... very very low. However, my personal opinion counts for exactly zero and so does yours. The American people 330,000,000 strong have, thru their democratic process, granted these people very high standing. Yes they are biased politicians, but it's not like they were actual participants, in which case they might not have standing. :I want to hear what Kevin McCarthy, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and other people of former or current high office have to say. If they almost all say "coup", then we can too. I haven't heard that yet. My ''personal'' opinion of these people is... very very low. However, my personal opinion counts for exactly zero and so does yours. The American people 330,000,000 strong have, thru their democratic process, granted these people very high standing. Yes they are biased politicians, but it's not like they were actual participants, in which case they might not have standing.


:1/6 is very different from, let us say, ] etc. For one thing, AFAIK only a very small minority of non-participant observers with standing, if any, have denied that this was basically a coup. For another, this involved organized bodies of actual soldiers or organized paramilitary armed with proper military equipment such as crewed weapons, operating under orders from a command structure, with a formal operation plan drafted by actual military officers. That is not ''necessary'' for an event to be called a coup, but it is ''sufficient'' and characterizes the good majority of coups. 6/1 lacks that sufficiency, so we have do dig down, and the debatability goes from near zero to a good deal higher. :1/6 is very different from, let us say, ] etc. For one thing, AFAIK only a very small minority of non-participant observers with standing, if any, have denied that this was basically a coup. For another, this involved organized bodies of actual uniformed soldiers or organized paramilitary armed with proper military equipment such as crewed weapons, operating under orders from a command structure, with a formal operation plan drafted by actual military officers. That is not ''necessary'' for an event to be called a coup, but it is ''sufficient'' and characterizes the good majority of coups. 6/1 lacks that sufficiency, and in fact has none of these, so we have do dig down, and the debatability goes from near zero to a good deal higher.


:That makes it a different kind of event, different enough from a sky-is-blue coup that its not a service to the reader to mix them together. Thus, a new "Debatable events" or whatever title is what we want for 1/6. ] (]) 19:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC) :That makes it a different kind of event, different enough from a sky-is-blue coup that its not a service to the reader to mix them together. Thus, a new "Debatable events" or whatever title is what we want for 1/6. ] (]) 19:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:47, 12 June 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of coups and coup attempts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

2021 US Capitol Attack Part 3

@AugusteBlanqui: I am sure you saw the comment in the 2021 section that reads "Please establish consensus on the talk page before adding the 6 January storming of the US Capitol". So, why do you insist on adding it to the list without establishing consensus first? Also, your argument that a charge of seditious conspiracy means that it was a coup is just your personal standard and does not matter to this list in the slightest. The only thing that matters is what most reliable sources call it. We report what reliable sources say, without WP:Undue weight, and the weight isn't on the side of sources that characterized the event as a coup. Where is the evidence that "coup" is the predominant term used by reliable sources to refer to this particular event? StellarHalo (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though my personal preference is to call it a coup (as I stated in the previous section), I am not seeing a policy-compliant reason to do so, and no one has advanced an argument grounded in Misplaced Pages policies to do so either. I note that our article about the topic 2021 United States Capitol attack hasn't been renamed to call it a coup. Until that happens, this article has no business contradicting the primary-topic article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Anachronist, here are some of today's headlines:
January 6 hearing: Trump accused of attempted coup | BBC
January 6 hearing: Trump was at heart of plot that led to ‘attempted coup’ | The Guardian
Capitol riot panel blames Trump for 1/6 ‘attempted coup’ | AP News
Bennie Thompson says Jan. 6 was the 'culmination of an attempted coup' | NPR
I may open a RM request at the main article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Given that this event is happening as we speak we shouldn’t have to make readers wait the days or weeks for an arbitrary consensus here when the truth is you should honor the citations reporting on this, and then start taking a vote if you must to see if it should remain or be excluded. That Trump attempted a coup is not really being debated by the mainstream consensus in the press. Makofakeoh (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Makofakeoh: not a single one of those sources refer to the event as an attempted coup. They are all quoting someone. The work "coup" is always part of a quotation. The sources aren't calling it that in their own voice.
In contrast, we are discussing characterizing the event that way in Misplaced Pages's narrative voice, violating policy; see WP:WIKIVOICE. As such, it violates also WP:UNDUE to call it a coup because news sources do not call it that. Plenty more call it an insurrection. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Numerous entries on the page are for "alleged coup attempts." Is an alleged coup attempt a coup attempt? It sounds as though it is only alleged, as in, some disagree with the allegation. Perhaps either all such alleged attempts should be deleted, or the 2021 American event should be listed as an alleged coup attempt, for it certainly is now alleged to be a coup attempt, by an official body at the highest level. JBriggeman (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add The January 6th 2020 Capitol attacks as an attempted coup. Thegoodguyas (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. see above discussions
Cannolis (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Concerns about "attempted coup"

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Seems the use of the phrase "attempted coup" in this and related articles requires "WP:CONSENSUS" - adding "this edit" (also, see copy below) has been "reverted" due to a lack of "WP:CONSENSUS" - there has not been "Consensus" for removing the edit either - nonetheless - a "WP:CONSENSUS" discussion is sought.

"Seems quoting an official USA Congressional Select Committee authority source, Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, at one of the highest government levels currently active in the USA government today, and as reported by one of the world's foremost Reliable Sources, The New York Times, is a good faith and sufficient edit addition regarding the use of the phrase, "attempted coup"." - Drbogdan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

My Edit Addition - Copied from the "List of coups and coup attempts" article:

  • 2021 American coup attempt: On 6 January, former President Trump attempted a coup attempt based on testimony by Chairman Bennie Thompson of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. According to Thompson, “Jan. 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup, a brazen attempt, as one rioter put it shortly after Jan. 6, to overthrow the government ... The violence was no accident. It represents Trump’s last stand, most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power.” Trump, according to the committee, "lied to the American people, ignored all evidence refuting his false fraud claims, pressured state and federal officials to throw out election results favoring his challenger, encouraged a violent mob to storm the Capitol and even signaled support for the execution of his own vice president." The panel also noted that Mr. Trump, by promoting a seven-part conspiracy, attempted to overturn a free and fair democratic election.

References

  1. ^ Broadwater, Luke (June 9, 2022). "'Trump Was at the Center': Jan. 6 Hearing Lays Out Case in Vivid Detail". The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2022.
  2. ^ Baker, Peter (June 9, 2022). "Trump Is Depicted as a Would-Be Autocrat Seeking to Hang Onto Power at All Costs - As the Jan. 6 committee outlined during its prime-time hearing, Donald J. Trump executed a seven-part conspiracy to overturn a free and fair democratic election". The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2022.

CONSENSUS QUESTION: The use of the phrase "attempted coup" is acceptable to use in this and related article(s)?

Agree
(All who agree, list your comments here; see below Oppose/Neutral.)
  1. Agree. Please see my opening comments described in detail above - Thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  2. Agree, but reword as it's duplicative and awkward. Here's a streamlined version (with American date format):
  3. Agree between the congressional sources and the numerous actual charges of sedition, this language is weak but acceptable. In addition, wikipedia must be able to discern critically important sources and outcomes from a mere quantitative measure of sources using the word "coup." It is this lack of critical capacity that results in so much systemic bias on wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  4. Agree between the congressional sources and the numerous actual charges of sedition, this language is acceptable and backed by multiple sources pouring in, echoing said language. Makofakeoh (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  5. Agree, as Thompson is speaking in his official capacity as chair. Also, the numbering got broke by the comments above, but I do not know how to fix it. Zaathras (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  6. Agree (but think this is malformed) This Not-Vote poll begins with a specific example (fine) and then asks a generic question (also fine) but putting the two together confuses what issue is really being presented here. So far as the generic question goes, per Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone_lists#Content_policies of course it is fine to include "attempted coups" here, so long as any given entry is supported by adequate RS. As for listing January 6 as an attempted coup, besides the Chairman's remarks, great value I believe is found in the expert opinion of NATO intelligence agencies outside the USNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  7. Agree, the facts, the Congressional sources, the news, and the many actual indictments of sedition in the courts justify its inclusion. This language is appropriate and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeWashington (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  8. UPDATE (I already agreed above) The 2021 Trump coup isn't an "alleged" coup any more. The house committee subpoenaed records from Trump's adviser John Eastman, who tried to refuse and sued the commitee in federal court. Thompson was the lead defendant in Eastman vs Thompson et al. In handing down its ruling the court declared the Eastman/Trump "campaign" to be a "coup in search of a legal theory". Thompson was one of the victors in this litigation, and he made his televised remarks roughly 10 weeks after the court ruled. So it wasn't just his opinion. It's federal law, until that case is overturned. I tweaked the article accordingly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC) PS.... I just learned that on the day of the ruling, Thompson read the key paragraph of the ruling into the committee hearing record. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Pothero, Mike (January 7, 2021). "Some among America's military allies believe Trump deliberately attempted a coup and may have had help from federal law-enforcement officials". Business Insider. Retrieved June 11, 2022.
  2. "Thompson & Cheney Opening Statements at Select Committee Business Meeting". Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. 28 March 2022.
Oppose
(All who oppose the decision, list your comments below.)
  1. Oppose. The introduction to this RFC is based on a false premise. Consensus must exist to include statements, not remove them, according to WP:BURDEN. Points to consider:
    • It is WP:TOOSOON. Not a single one of the sources based on events of this week call the Jan 6 attack a "coup" in their own narrative voice, and neither should we. Doing so violates WP:WIKIVOICE part of our NPOV policy. All sources are reporting how a some politicians have characterized the event, and the word "coup" or "attempted coup" are always quoted, not stated as fact.
    • In fact, a search of the newspapers.com archive for 2022 shows that articles containing the words "trump capitol insurrection" outnumber articles containing "trump capitol coup" by a factor of 8. There is no consensus in the sources for "coup" yet, and no evidence has been presented that this is how sources are characterizing it. They are quoting the opinions of others.
    • In rebuttal to the comment of User:Valjean, quoting a Democrat politician isn't meaningful, as most Democrats in Congress probably would characterize it as a coup. Politicians produce political opinions. That's just what they do. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be parroting the political views of politicians (as some politicians' views are demonstrably false, such as "election was stolen").
    • This article doesn't rely on quotes from politicians anywhere else, so why make an exception here? Misplaced Pages should state what sources state as objective facts, and when sources describe it in their own voice, they tend not to use the term "coup".
    • That said, my personal preference is to call it an attempted coup, but my personal preference is irrelevant. I hope someone can come up with policy-grounded reasons to include the phrase. I'm just not seeing it based on looking at the sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Reliable sources policy says, "The reliability of a source depends on context." For a claim of this nature, we would need to show that it is the consensus opinion among experts. That probably will not be formed until all the evidence has been heard and a full picture is available. TFD (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We need to await further clarity from reliable sources, especially neutral histories in book form. Not every alleged attempted coup is an actual attempted coup. Moreover, it remains unclear whether this particular episode was allegedly a self-coup attempt or not. There is no urgency to attach labels to this event, as the event can be described without labels at 2021 United States Capitol attack. Additionally, an alleged attempted coup does not become an actual attempted coup merely because one congressman says so (“On 6 January, former President Trump attempted a coup attempt based on testimony by Chairman Bennie Thompson….”). Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The article linked to by NewsandEventsGuy says, "Some among America's military allies believe Trump deliberately attempted a coup and may have had help from federal law-enforcement officials." (I italicized key words.) Mr. Thompson said there was an attempted coup, but that's his opinion. We don't have RSs confirming his opinion. It's important we not call it a coup or coup attempt in Misplaced Pages's own voice. YoPienso (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
(A) For an RS, I used the official press release from his US House committee containing a transcript of his words, which is RS for fact he said that. We can include such things provided we give inline attribution if its debatable, see WP:LISTCRIT, so our article doesn't say it was a coup it says Thompson said it was a coup. Some are complaining that the title and/or lead to this article converts Thompson's opinion into a wikivoice statement. I think the argument is weak but has enough merit I've raised a need to review our compliance with list guideliness (see later subsection this talk page). (B) You quoted some editors word choice for the headline to an article, describing non US-intelligence people advising their respective governments that it was a coup attempt. In my view, professional intelligence briefings in non-US nations should be given a lot of WP:WEIGHT. BTW, did you read the article or just the headline? (C) We are also starting to see the academic professional literature describe Jan 6 as a coup. I've started adding some of those refs at Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election (D) I came back later and struck out B, as I may have made too much of this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm striking my comment about the article you linked to but have now removed. Yes, I did read it, and wondered if you had! This was the day after the event when people were saying the Capitol Police had assisted the rioters. A few were indeed too friendly with selfies, etc., but by now we know the police were not in cahoots with Trump. I haven't seen any evidence that Trump directly did anything to organize the riot. He's not an organizer, but a gusher of wild words. He seemed to have been pleasantly surprised at the effect of his reckless words. YoPienso (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No, not here. A section near the bottom "Debatable events" would be a good place for this, and also serve as a place for similar situations if they come up.
I think it's creep to include debatable events in the main line. Even if the body text gives both sides, bulleted placement in the main line conveys a message and an opinion.
I want to hear what Kevin McCarthy, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and other people of former or current high office have to say. If they almost all say "coup", then we can too. I haven't heard that yet. My personal opinion of these people is... very very low. However, my personal opinion counts for exactly zero and so does yours. The American people 330,000,000 strong have, thru their democratic process, granted these people very high standing. Yes they are biased politicians, but it's not like they were actual participants, in which case they might not have standing.
1/6 is very different from, let us say, 2010 Nigerien coup d'état etc. For one thing, AFAIK only a very small minority of non-participant observers with standing, if any, have denied that this was basically a coup. For another, this involved organized bodies of actual uniformed soldiers or organized paramilitary armed with proper military equipment such as crewed weapons, operating under orders from a command structure, with a formal operation plan drafted by actual military officers. That is not necessary for an event to be called a coup, but it is sufficient and characterizes the good majority of coups. 6/1 lacks that sufficiency, and in fact has none of these, so we have do dig down, and the debatability goes from near zero to a good deal higher.
That makes it a different kind of event, different enough from a sky-is-blue coup that its not a service to the reader to mix them together. Thus, a new "Debatable events" or whatever title is what we want for 1/6. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Re your 3rd paragraph, if they have logical reasoning/critical thinking reasons.... using evidence-based facts.... to analyze Trump's overall Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and conclude it was not a coup, then I'd want to hear it too. But I'm not interested in partisan table pounding where they are just trying to frame the issue because that would be creating prohibited WP:FALSEBALANCE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
A separate section clearly titled something like “other claimed coups or attempted coups” would be fine, with an introductory sentence explaining why they’re listed separately (e.g. explaining that sometimes the claims are more reliable and verifiable than what is claimed). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Pending working out the details in a mutually agreed way, I could live with a separate section.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral
(All users neutral about the issue, list your comments below.)
  1. Neutral. State why.

End of consensus discussion about using the phrase "attempted coup" in this and related article(s) - Drbogdan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at RS noticeboard

I have started a notice board discussion here subtitled “Is Congressman Thompson or any congressperson an RS?” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, and probably helpful in its own way. However, the sources are making this direct claim; with their own reporting and analysis too, see for instance and they are not simply parroting a Congressman but offering a thoughtful take.
Otherwise, by your logic, every source is wrongheaded- since any source in some sense could be mislabeled as the opinion of one biased person or another.
I re-read WP:V and the multiple sources backing up this claim are more than satisfactory. Plus the event itself happened a year ago, so the bipartisan panel is now delivering its non-partisan objective findings. Maybe you don't like it, but that saying, you can have your own set of opinions but not your own set of facts.
Then, of course, there is the truth itself, for what it is worth to you- that Trump did indeed try to steal the 2021 election and attempt a violent coup (e.g. encouraging his own VP to be hanged, amongst other glaring incriminating facts in the matter.)
Contentious as this all may be, with the coup attempt a year ago and all the reporting and forensic investigations against it since then (not to mention the arrests) it is more than appropriate to start saying it like it is as the press is now doing without hesitancy. You wanted my thoughts. There they are. Makofakeoh (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/trump-jan-6-hearings.html
Until the panel votes in favor of a statement listing their findings of fact, there ARE no official "findings". Just statements on the record, but they can change before they finally take a vote on the bottom line. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Broadwater, Luke (June 9, 2022). "'Trump Was at the Center': Jan. 6 Hearing Lays Out Case in Vivid Detail". The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2022.
This is not a direct claim: “the panel offered new information about what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by Mr. Trump that culminated in the deadly assault on the Capitol.” It may turn out that it was an attempted coup, but we need valid sourcing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Coup vs Self-coup

In Wiki and elsewhere I've seen discussion whether the correct word to use about Jan 6 is a "coup", short for "Coup d'état". According to some who say Trump was trying to illegally stay in power, the correct word would be "self coup". In my view, this debate is an erudite false dichotomy, because our article on "self coups" says in the first sentence that a self coups "is a form of coup d'état...". This is a bit like arguing whether the things in my fridge drawer are "Fruit" or "Apples" when both are true. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Ingraham, Christopher (January 13, 2021). "How experts define the deadly mob attack at the U.S. Capitol". Washington Post.

JFK assassination and other alleged coups

This list has been limited for a very long time to actual coups and coup attempts, verified as such by reliable sources. For example, see this discussion fourteen years ago about whether to list the JFK assassination, which some people viewed as a coup per reliable sources. Because this issue about alleged stuff seems to be recurring, I think we should put something into the lead about scope. Either that, or start listing stuff like the JFK assassination. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Triple yawn; the archived thread contains zero, repeat zero, suggested sources, reliable or otherwise. And here we are again doing the same hand waving. How about starting over with suggested RS for a meaningful discussion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Zillions of reliable sources have discussed the possibility that the JFK assassination was a coup d’etat. But the reliable secondary sources do not say in their own voices that there was a JFK assassination coup. So does the JFK assassination coup qualify for this list of coups?

Etc, etc, etc. I think we should clarify this list’s scope in the lead so that mere allegations of a coup or coup attempt are not included in the list. Or we could include allegations in a separate section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The content is inappropriate because it's WP:FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for posting sources. I'm personally uninterested in the JFK discussion here, and have no opinion, but I do appreciate you going on record for the sources you want to use. It would also help discussion to see draft text presented here. I'm not saying I'd support it, or oppose it, or think it is (or is not) Fringe, just making discussions suggestions. Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
User:NewsAndEventsGuy, I’m not proposing to list any JFK coup in this article. I’m proposing to clarify in the lead that mere allegations of a coup or coup attempt are not included in the list (or alternatively we could make a separate section for mere allegations). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
In my view, you've shot yourself in the foot by asking about JFK when what you really want to talk about is a generic issue, questioning the appropriate WP:SCOPE of this article. I'm open to talking about "allegations" of coups a bit before considering what, if anything we should do about that, but let me ask you this.... in the event a coup attempt fails, could we ever describe that as a coup attempt, rather than just an alleged coup attempt? I mean, where is the referee who gets the say-so to make the call? If you say yes we could, please describe how you would assess if the RSs are sufficient for Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth purposes? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Of course, we could describe a failed coup as a coup attempt, for example if uncontested reliable secondary sources say (in their own voices) that it was a coup attempt. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
As you just used the word, how would we measure whether a secondary RS is "uncontested"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
This is Misplaced Pages editing 101. “rticles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.” If no reliable secondary sources take a particular view as their own, then the view is very likely a minority view. We can write about the minority view, but I don’t think it should be mixed in with the views that are so widely held as to be adopted by reliable secondary sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
That seems nonresponsive to me. I had asked you to explain As you just used the word, how would we measure whether a secondary RS is "uncontested"? Care to try again? Alternatively how, in your mind, you think your first answer settles the "uncontested" question? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I said above, “we could describe a failed coup as a coup attempt, for example if uncontested reliable secondary sources say (in their own voices) that it was a coup attempt.” By uncontested I meant that no other reliable secondary sources disagree with those that say there was a coup attempt. Of course, that was an example, and I am not saying all the information in this article needs to be uncontested. But there does need to be some predominance in reliable secondary source that a coup or coup attempt occurred. Our article title claims in wikivoice that the content of this article consists of coups and coup attempts, so we ought to have reliable secondary or tertiary sources to back up each listed item. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth, but I would like to test if I understand by trying to say it back to you the way I understand it, and invite rejection or improvement of my restatement. It sounds like "uncontested" simply means that in the collective judgment of participating wikipedia editors, a statement is supported by RSs that pass muster with WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Am I close? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Not remotely close. The opinions of Misplaced Pages editors have nothing to do with it, because they (and Misplaced Pages itself) are not reliable sources. Again, Misplaced Pages 101. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Funny, I thought Misplaced Pages 101 was WP:CONSENSUS and therefore everything involves Misplaced Pages editors' opinions. Now it sounds like you're after WP:The Truth. So how do you think editors can determine what is "uncontested" without using their opinions in any way? For example, my opinion is that the BBC is an RS and the fact that most editors share that opinion just makes it a widely held opinion. But its still an opinion. So whatever elements go into the mysterious category of "uncontested" we'll still be using our judgment - i.e., our opinions, to evaluate those elements and see if they are (in our collective view) satisfied. And a core consideration after deciding if something is RS is evaluating the proposed text per WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. That's Wiki 101 as I understand it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Anythingyouwant That is indeed one fine strawman you have going on there. No sources ever truly speaks in its own voice on empirical matters, according to your fallacious reasoning. Articles about the DNA evidence used to implicate O.J. Simpson, for instance, refer to the DNA experts or forensic investigators. That doesn’t mean we cannot include it. You are trying to introduce a false balance into this. Thomas is simply speaking on behalf of the committee and reporting its findings, which is why the reporter is reporting it as such, a finding that Trump engaged in a coup. Makofakeoh (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
(A) If it's not too much trouble, please insert @Editor in your comment so third parties know if you are addressing me or Anythingyouwant. (B) Until the committee actually votes on "findings of fact" they do not exist. So far we have their on-the-record statements, but those can change before they vote. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
P.S. As for the rest: in a political hearing like this it is a foregone conclusion, a formality for such an unprecedented situation that won't be acknowledged in a meaningful way anyways by the whole body politic even if Jesus Christ himself came down and signed off on it. I'm simply being reductive, as is the committee, in presenting its findings which, at best, is all they can hope for: offering the truth in hopes that 'the truth alone' will stir meaningful change. This isn't a 3rd impeachment, after all, even though the last two did little to change the status quo. And whatever vote may follow isn't binding, beyond putting those on record who support it or oppose it. My 2 cents. Makofakeoh (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Roger that. Done and  Done
@SPECIFICO Since you are an experienced editor do you also mind offering your opinion above about whether or not this content should be included? Makofakeoh (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Which editor? SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO SPECIFICO. You. Makofakeoh (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
It's been widely reported and discussed in RS that Thompson made that assertion, so I see no reason not to include it. User Anything is opposing it with a straw-person argument. It's not an RS issue for the attributed assertion of Thompson. It's only a due weight issue, and it appears to pass that test based on publications since the hearing. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO That is a useful, cogent summary; distilling the confusion right out of it. Do you mind sharing that here? ]
Might be helpful for everyone involved since the debate gets muddled easily and that's a sobering perspective. Thank you for the feedback. Makofakeoh (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO that's only half of it though. I agree with what you said regarding the line item where we talk Jan 6. But that's NOT the text about which Anything (and at least one other at the RSN) raised wikivoice complaints. That complaint stems from the lead section of the article, which - so it is claimed - implies any entry on this list is definitely either a coup or attempted coup, and there isn't any wiffle waffle about it. Although I think Jan 6 should be included here, I have to admit there is just enough merit to this argument that it should be addressed. But the argument is easily laid to rest by adding text to the lead which explains our selection criteria. I've started a new section for discussion the Lead and inclusion criteria, somewhere down below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead section and list inclusion criteria

A. Per WP:SALLEAD (a guideline), this list should probably include selection criteria. The guideline says in part

A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. This introductory material is especially important for lists that feature little or no other non-list prose in their article body. Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to both readers, to understand the scope, and other editors, to reduce the tendency to include trivial or off-topic entries. The lead section can also be used to explain the structure of embedded lists in the article body when no better location suggests itself.

We might say something about events described by "most historians" as coups or coup attempts, and also for events involving physical violence where a significant number of notable commenters have described the event in those terms. But I'm open to other ideas.

B. Per WP:LISTCRIT, its ok to list alleged events with inline attribution. In relevant part this guideline says

In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.

So where historians disagree or for recent events lacking sufficient historian analysis, inline attribution allows us to include alleged coups.

C. Re the title, I'd be OK changing the title to List of coups and possible coups or List of coups, coup attempts, and alleged coup attempts, if we can agree on specific listing criteria. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

PS I'm also ok with the existing title and just explaining in the lead text that we're including failures that are so far alleged to be coup attempts, based on such characterization by multiple notable persons or sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
If we do say in the lead that alleged coups and coup attempts are included in the list, that might be okay, but I strongly urge that the alleged stuff be put in a separate section. I don’t favor mixing them in with actual verified coups and coup attempts. If we do a really thorough job of finding out about the alleged stuff, then I suspect there will be much more of that stuff than the verified stuff, I doubt any Misplaced Pages editors will really have time or inclination to go look for the alleged stuff in reliable sources. It will also be difficult to figure out which of the alleged stuff falls within WP:Fringe given that none of that stuff is confirmed by reliable sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
No, makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Your reasoning is less than impressive. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant 'Your reasoning' is even less impressive. Makofakeoh (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant, I see no compelling reason to split this list on the basis of event outcome and I think its more useful, especially for more recent times, to have all the events in chronological order, because that helps one have a good overall global picture of all these events and when they happened in relation to each other, regardless of outcome. You're welcome to review any one of them and decide that it was merely an alleged coup, and add inline attribution to the source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Mixing in conspiracy theories with verified coups is apples and oranges. If you want to include alleged stuff in addition to verified stuff, then I recommend following the format at List of alleged Chinese spy cases prosecuted in the United States which separately lists people accused, convicted, and exonerated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Since no one is discussing any conspiracy theories (other than JFK, which you brought up) see red herring NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Categories: