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 editContent 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 Latest revision as of 23:34, 16 October 2024 edit undoQwerty786 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users13,970 edits →Falsely describes January 6 as a coup: ReplyTag: Reply 
(526 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} {{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Politics|class=list|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject History|class=list|importance=high}} {{WikiProject History|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=CL|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|list=yes|Science=yes}} {{WikiProject Military history|class=CL|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|list=yes|Science=yes}}
}} }}


Line 10: Line 10:
| algo = old(120d) | algo = old(120d)
| archive = Talk:List of coups and coup attempts/Archive %(counter)d | archive = Talk:List of coups and coup attempts/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1 | counter = 3
| maxarchivesize = 150K | maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 18: Line 18:
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=120|minthreadsleft=5}} {{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=120|minthreadsleft=5}}


== I beg of someone to change the Kyrgyzstan May 6th 2023 Coup Attempt to June 5th 2023. ==
== 2021 US Capitol Attack Part 3 ==


This has been bugging me for weeks and honestly I thought someone would change it but it still says May 6th I have looked through all the Sources and none of them state that it had taken place on May 6th in fact this source:
{{ping|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 ], 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? ] (]) 01:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-security-services-arrest-alleged-coup-plotters-from-obscure-party
that was provided specifically states that it was announced in a June 5th statement. I ask someone please change this and thank you. ] (]) 23:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


== Decembrist Revolt in Russia, 1825 ==
: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 ] hasn't been renamed to call it a coup. Until that happens, this article has no business contradicting the primary-topic article. ~] <small>(])</small> 06:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
::{{u|Anachronist}}, here are some of today's headlines:
::
::
::
::
::I may open a RM request at the main article. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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. ] (]) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
:::{{reply|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 ]. As such, it violates also ] to call it a coup because news sources do not call it that. Plenty more call it an insurrection. ~] <small>(])</small> 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. ] (]) 22:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


I think this should count as a coup d'etat, specifically a failed barracks coup, given that I have read most sources listed in the other Wiki on the subject (]) and it is ''literally'' called a 'failed coup' in the beginning of the article. Open for discussion, would like to talk about this.
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2022 ==
-shadowm ] (]) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


:yes. It is. Please add it. ] (]) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|List of coups and coup attempts|answered=yes}}
Add The January 6th 2020 Capitol attacks as an attempted coup. ] (]) 21:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> see above discussions
] (]) 22:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


== RFC: Concerns about "attempted coup" == == Falsely describes January 6 as a coup ==
<!-- ] 19:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1657998077}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=52B9DD6}}
Seems the use of the phrase '''"attempted coup"''' in this and related articles requires "]" - adding "" (also, see copy below) has been "" due to a lack of "]" - there has not been "Consensus" for ''removing'' the edit either - nonetheless - a "]" discussion is sought.


This has to be the first time in history that someone is accused of attempting to overthrow a government while being quoted as stating "we are the party of law and order" and publicly demanding his followers to go home. ] (]) 16:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"{{tq|Seems quoting an official USA Congressional Select Committee authority source, Committee Chairman ], at one of the highest government levels currently active in the USA government today, and as reported by one of the world's foremost ], '']'', is a ] and sufficient edit addition regarding the use of the phrase, '''"attempted coup"'''.}}" - ] (]) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


:We tend to call that "being untruthful". ] (]) 21:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
<blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;">
:It's not our call -- scholars of political violence list it as a coup. But it doesn't say that Trump was in on it. ] (]) 22:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::Actually, if you see our '''' , ''no'' scholars of political violence list it as a coup. If you look at the citations of Jan 6 in this article, none are from coup scholars. That's why nobody last year could agree to making this article into a list based on criteria from scholars of political violence. ] (]) 20:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Can everyone agree to remove the justification for it being on this list and leave it for the article ] (]) 23:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


== Looking for Ukraine 2014 Coup d'état ==
- Copied from the "]" article:


I was attempting to self-educate me on the 2014 events but found no entry in here. ] (]) 12:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
*]: On 6 January, former President Trump attempted a coup attempt based on testimony by Chairman ] of the ].<ref name="NYT-20220609lb">{{cite news |last=Broadwater |first=Luke |title=‘Trump Was at the Center’: Jan. 6 Hearing Lays Out Case in Vivid Detail |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/trump-jan-6-hearings.html |date=June 9, 2022 |work=] |accessdate=June 10, 2022 }}</ref><ref name="NYT-20220609pb">{{cite news |last=Baker |first=Peter |title=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. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/trump-jan-6-hearing.html |date=June 9, 2022 |work=] |accessdate=June 10, 2022 }}</ref> 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."<ref name="NYT-20220609lb" /><ref name="NYT-20220609pb" /> The panel also noted that Mr. Trump, by promoting a seven-part conspiracy, attempted to overturn a free and fair democratic election.<ref name="NYT-20220609lb" /><ref name="NYT-20220609pb" />
{{reflist-talk}}
</blockquote>
{{anchor|agree}}
'''CONSENSUS QUESTION: The use of the phrase "attempted coup" is acceptable to use in this and related article(s)?'''


:That would be the ], it wasn't a coup. ] (]) 13:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
; '''Agree'''
::Is there an explanation in the linked article why it is not seen as a coup, even though it is seen as one by some politicians and journalists? I found no explanation in this list, nor in the linked article. The latter is pretty large, possibly I missed it! ] (]) 23:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
: (''All who agree, list your comments here; see below Oppose/Neutral''.)
# '''Agree'''. Please see my opening comments described in detail above - Thanks - ] (]) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC) :::If you found no explanation in the linked article then either failed to read it, or failed to understand it. ] (]) 00:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
::Euromaidan is classified as a coup in both the and the datasets. ] (]) 18:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
# '''Agree''', but reword as it's duplicative and awkward. Here's a streamlined version (with American date format):
:::Your first link titled 'Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset." It does not include 2014.<br>Your second link refers Misplaced Pages and the first link. ] (]) 18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
#* "]: On January 6, 2021, then-president Trump attempted a coup according to testimony by Chairman ] of the ]." -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 02:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::::First, please actually click on the P&T updated file ("), as it continues to be updated thru 2023. Second, your characterization of the CDP dataset is disingenuous -- their references in the sourcebook always include at least one primary source, and for Ukraine they include three (WSJ, Telegraph, and CSM). A reference to WP and a previous dataset serves as a source aggregator, as you should expect it does with every such reference. We reviewed coup datasets extensively last year -- both are respected in their field, and are about the bounds of exclusivity and inclusivity for datasets aggregating post-WW2 coups. ] (]) 19:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
#** {{reply|Valjean}} - Yes - I *entirely* agree with your improvements and better wording - Thank You - ] (]) 11:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
#*** Want to take a crack at it then? Not sure how to work this tweak in? Surely sounds better. ] (]) 16:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC) :::::What are your references and how do they fit to ]? ] (]) 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::You did check the datasets I linked, right? Look for Ukraine, 2014 (the only one listed on either dataset). Everything refers to those. If my abbreviations or something else are confusing let me know. ] (]) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
# '''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. ] (]) 16:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Cline calls what happened in Ukraine a 'Popular Revolt' not a type of coup—] 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
# '''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. ] (]) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
# '''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. ] (]) 19:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC) ::::::::"The typology and operational definitions of the coup categories are provided below." ] (]) 00:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::we would need more robust sources than mentions in datasets to include it here....the cline codebook uses wide definition of 'coup', which makes sense given the kinda stuff this dataset is intend to be used for (i suspect the same goes for P&T) but typically the def they use for popular revolt ({{xt|An irregular regime change driven by widespread popular dissatisfaction expressed through large-scale civil unrest. An event falls into this category if a large-scale popular rebellion overthrows existing leader, forces their resignations, or elites use irregular means to force leadership changes in order to conciliate the populace. It is not a popular revolt if elites overthrow incumbents they consider “soft” on dissent in order to facilitate a crackdown.}}) is not typically used for coups ... —] 01:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
# '''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 ] of course it is fine to include "attempted coups" here, so long as any given entry is supported by adequate RS. As for listing ] as an attempted coup, besides the Chairman's remarks, great value I believe is found in the expert opinion of ] (]) 19:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Please review my previous comments, then look at P&T. I have addressed this. If you are interested in this topic, we went over this quite exhaustively and exhaustingly in discussions last year, which are linked in the section above. ] (]) 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
#*Adding related detailed reference noted above<ref name="IN-20210107">{{cite news |last=Pothero |first=Mike |title=Some among America's military allies believe Trump deliberately attempted a coup and may have had help from federal law-enforcement officials |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attempted-coup-federal-law-enforcement-capitol-police-2021-1 |date=January 7, 2021 |work=] |accessdate=June 11, 2022 }}</ref> - seems better - and clearer - ] (]) 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::The database/dataset doesn't fit ]. ] (]) 08:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
# '''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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::::::How? To support what text? What are you trying to argue here? ] (]) 16:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
# '''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 accordingly. ] (]) 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. <ref>{{cite web |title=Thompson & Cheney Opening Statements at Select Committee Business Meeting |url=https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/thompson-cheney-opening-statements-select-committee-business-meeting-2 |website=Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol |language=en |date=28 March 2022}}</ref>] (]) 14:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::To classify Euromaidan as a coup. ] (]) 16:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
::::::::::::::First note that I never said any text should be added or that language should be changed. All I said was that X is in Y and Z datasets. I'm not keen on adding content -- the article needs a complete rewrite per the ] guideline.
; '''Oppose'''
::::::::::::::That said, please actually explain how academic sources are not RS for the article in its current state, because that just seems totally bizarre. We've noted in this article that the definition of 'coup' is not fixed. These are widely-cited academic datasets that set particular definitions for 'coup' and make classifications according to primary sources. Are you seriously saying they are not RS when this article does not fix its own definition for a 'coup'? ] (]) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
: (''All who oppose the decision, list your comments below''.)
::{{outdent|12}} If no changes are proposed then there is no need to discuss. ] (]) 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. The introduction to this RFC is based on a false premise. Consensus must exist to ''include'' statements, not ''remove'' them, according to ]. Points to consider:
:::If none of us are keen on adding it let's leave it at that—] 19:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
#*It is ]. 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 ] 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 ], 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. ~] <small>(])</small> 02:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
#'''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. ] (]) 00:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
#'''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 ] attempt or not. There is no urgency to attach labels to this event, as the event can be described without labels at ]. 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….”).] (]) 17:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' <s>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.)</s> 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. ] (]) 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 ], 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) <s>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 ]. BTW, did you read the article or just the headline? </s> (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 ] (D) I came back later and struck out B, as I may have made too much of this article. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.


== The Bolivian coup of 2019 is not listed ==
: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.


The Bolivian coup of 2019 is not listed and there is a warning about it to see the talk page which is this but you don't mention Bolivia at all
: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 am Bolivian lawyer and Iwant to add this.
: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.
I see no reasons for not including the Bolivia coup and in the talk page, which is this, you don't even mention Bolivia.
I can say it was a coup, not a riot because the president Evo was overthrown and he had to flee and after that Añez was possessed without following the requirements established in our law which of to be the senator of one of the more important parties in Bolivia, which wasn't the case of Añez.


So I want to include this coup, now tell me what do you need to do this or tell why was it rejected.
: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)
Misplaced Pages can't re write the history, doing these things of trying to bend the history you are just lacking credibility, just that.
::Re your 3rd paragraph, if they have logical reasoning/critical thinking reasons.... using evidence-based facts.... to analyze Trump's overall ] 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 ]. ] (]) 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).] (]) 19:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
::Pending working out the details in a mutually agreed way, I could live with a separate section.] (]) 19:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
; '''Neutral'''
: (''All users neutral about the issue, list your comments below''.)
# '''Neutral'''. State why.


Maybe Misplaced Pages is not free to be impartial, then the case is lost and people should write and expose and investigate why wikipedia denies historical facts.
End of consensus discussion about using the phrase '''"attempted coup"''' in this and related article(s) - ] (]) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


This is what I want to add, so tell me if that would be accepted if i present the bibliography of serious links.
===Discussion at RS noticeboard===
I have started a notice board discussion subtitled “Is Congressman Thompson or any congressperson an RS?”] (]) 18:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


: ]: On November Jeanine Añez, a senator without the lawful requirements (according to Bolivian law) to be president assumed the presidency, impulsed by the organization CONADE, when the legal government of Evo Morales was overthrown and he (and other senators were threatened and resigned) was forced to resign after allegations of fraud that the OAS supported in their inform which was later rejected for independent studies for presenting no real proof of fraud.
: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 <ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/trump-jan-6-hearings.html</ref> and they are not simply parroting a Congressman but offering a thoughtful take.
: The coup included the massacres of Senkata and Sacaba. The fraud allegations were completely rejected when Arce (of the same party of Morales) won the last election.
: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.
<!-- READ THE TALK PAGE BEFORE INCLUDING BOLIVIA.
:I re-read ] 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.
I ALREADY READ THAT AND AS I AM A LAWYER AND I LIVE IN BOLIVIA I KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO REASONS TO NOT INCLUDE THE COUP IF BOLIVIA THAT YEAR, BESIDES IT IS SO PARTIAL OF YOU TO NOT INCLUDE THAT!!!!! AÑEZ DIDN'T HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE PRESIDENT AND SINCE THE RIGHT WING THREATENED THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATORS (ALL OF MORALES PARTY) THAT HAD THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE PRESIDENT THOSE RESIGNED WERE FORCED, SO THE RIGHT WING CREATED AND AMBIENT TO FORCE AÑEZ POSSESSION AS A PRESIDENT AS NO OTHER SENATOR HAD THE FREEDOM TO ASSUME THE PRESIDENCY. EVEN THE PARLIAMENT COULDN'T JOIN IN THE CONGRESS BECAUSE THE POLICE DIDN'T LET THEM IN.
: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.)
YOU COULD CHECK WIKIPEDIA ABOUT THE MASSACRES, SO YOU CAN'T DENY THE BOLIVIAN COUP WITHOUT BEING PARTIAL WITH THE ONES THAT OVERTHREW MORALES
: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. ] (]) 18:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
-->
{{reflist-talk}}
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 17:36, 9 July 2024‎ (UTC)
:*Added related detailed reference noted above<ref name="NYT-20220609lb">{{cite news |last=Broadwater |first=Luke |title=‘Trump Was at the Center’: Jan. 6 Hearing Lays Out Case in Vivid Detail |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/trump-jan-6-hearings.html |date=June 9, 2022 |work=] |accessdate=June 10, 2022 }}</ref> - seems beter - and clearer - ] (]) 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::::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. ] (]) 21:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
::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.] (]) 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 "]". According to some who say Trump was trying to illegally stay in power, the correct word would be "]".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Ingraham |first1=Christopher |title=How experts define the deadly mob attack at the U.S. Capitol |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/13/autogolpe-self-coup-capitol/ |work=Washington Post |date=January 13, 2021}}</ref> In my view, this debate is an erudite ], 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. ] (]) 22:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::{{reftalk}}


:From the article you linked (which, it is worth pointing out, actually is named ] – it does not have "coup" in its name): {{tq|International politicians, scholars and journalists were divided between describing the event as a coup or popular uprising.}} Given how disputed its status as a coup is, I think consensus would need to be achieved first for inclusion. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
== JFK assassination and other alleged coups ==
::<s>Considering your answer. I included more references that indicate it was a coup.
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 ] 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.] (]) 20:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::Besides you didn't say what is the reason for not considering it a "coup" because there were many facts that indicate it was a coup: the commander of army forces invited the president to resign, army forces were used to shut up people and kill, the new president wasn't elected in general elections, the new president didn't have all the requirements indicated in the Bolivian constitution, the legal president was forced to resign and flee to save his life, a plot to accuse falsely to have made fraud was done with the help of OAS, the US and the European Union, the massacres of Senkata and Sacaba to threat and calm people, the supress of freedom of speech, the closure of different media news and even the killing of Argentinean journalists and union leaders, etc.
: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? ] (]) 20:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::So I included this with a summary at the beginning and references at the end....
{{od}} 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?
::This is what i added and all the references that indicated it was a coup...

:: THERE’s been a coup in Bolivia. There’s no other word for it. The president was ‘invited’ to step down by his military chief of staff. Police fired live rounds at demonstrators. Some former political leaders were arrested, others were forced into hiding. Media outlets were closed and journalists imprisoned for ‘sedition’. Parliamentarians were prevented from entering the national assembly. A senator declared herself president, and was caught on camera smiling as a soldier helped her put on the sash of office. Generals posed for the camera, too, eyes hidden behind dark glasses.
*
:: The mainstream media has carefully avoided the term ‘coup’ in describing the overthrow of President Evo Morales. The first female dictator in South America’s history, Jeanine Áñez, downplayed concerns: ‘A coup d’état is when there are soldiers in the street,’ she said in an interview on 12 November, ignoring the fact that the day before she had asked the army to join the police in ‘restoring order’ in La Paz . Soldiers were patrolling the capital’s streets as she was speaking.

::*]: On November Jeanine Añez, a senator without the lawful requirements (according to Bolivian law) to be president assumed the presidency, impulsed by the organization CONADE, when the legal government of Evo Morales was overthrown and he (and other senators were threatened and resigned) was forced to resign after allegations of fraud that the OAS supported in their inform which was later rejected for independent studies for presenting no real proof of fraud.
*
{{collapsetop}}

:: The coup included the massacres of Senkata and Sacaba. The fraud allegations were completely rejected when Arce (of the same party of Morales) won the last election.
*
::<ref>{{cite

:: news |work=]|url=https://mondediplo.com/2019/12/02bolivia|title
*
:: =Bolivia’s coup|MORALES HAD KEPT THE WHOLE THING TOGETHER. Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, has been forced from office, despite winning praise both from progressives and international financial institutions like the IMF. Why did it happen and how did it all unravel so fast?|THERE’s been a coup in Bolivia. There’s no other word for it. The president was ‘invited’ to step down by his military chief of staff. Police fired live rounds at demonstrators. Some former political leaders were arrested, others were forced into hiding. Media outlets were closed and journalists imprisoned for ‘sedition’. Parliamentarians were prevented from entering the national assembly. A senator declared herself president, and was caught on camera smiling as a soldier helped her put on the sash of office. Generals posed for the camera, too, eyes hidden behind dark glasses.

:: The mainstream media has carefully avoided the term ‘coup’ in describing the overthrow of President Evo Morales. The first female dictator in South America’s history, Jeanine Áñez, downplayed concerns: ‘A coup d’état is when there are soldiers in the street,’ she said in an interview on 12 November, ignoring the fact that the day before she had asked the army to join the police in ‘restoring order’ in La Paz . Soldiers were patrolling the capital’s streets as she was speaking|: sources |date=December 2019} }</ref>
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.] (]) 20:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::<ref>{{cite
:That's not the issue. The content is inappropriate because it's ].]] 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: news |work=]|url=https://nacla.org/review-coup-story-violence-and-resistance-bolivia
::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 ] (]) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: /|title
::::], 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).] (]) 22:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: =Coup: A Story of Violence and Resistance in Bolivia (Review)|Farthing and Becker’s book sheds new light on the violence of the interim government as well as the heroic resistance of Bolivian social movements|: sources |date=
:::::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 ] 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 ], 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 ] purposes? ] (]) 22:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: December 2019} }</ref>
:::::::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.] (]) 22:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::<ref>{{cite
::::::::As you just used the word, how would we measure whether a secondary RS is "uncontested"? ] (]) 22:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: news |work=]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/18/silence-us-backed-coup-evo-morales-bolivia-american-states
::::::::::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.] (]) 23:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: /|title
:::::::::::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? ] (]) 23:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: =Silence reigns on the US-backed coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia|The Organization of American States had a key role in the destruction of the country’s democracy last November
:::::::::::::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.] (]) 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: |: sources |date=Fri 18 Sep 2020 } }</ref>
::::::::::::::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 ] and ]. Am I close? ] (]) 23:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::<ref>{{cite
::::::::::::::::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.] (]) 23:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: news |work=]|url=https://www.clacso.org/en/la-union-europea-y-su-actuacion-en-el-golpe-de-estado-de-bolivia-en-2019/|title
:::::::::::::::::Funny, I thought Misplaced Pages 101 was ] and therefore ''everything'' involves Misplaced Pages editors' opinions. Now it sounds like you're after ]. 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 ] and ]. That's Wiki 101 as I understand it. ] (]) 00:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: =La Unión Europea y su actuación en el golpe de Estado de Bolivia en 2019|Observatorio de Democracia y Seguridad, Bolivia|: sources |date=Jun. 2023}}</ref>
::::::::@] 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. ] (]) 22:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::<ref>{{cite
:::::::::(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. ] (]) 22:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: news |work=]|url=https://prospect.org/world/2023-04-05-lawmakers-investigation-oas-boss-almagro/|title
:::::::::::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. ] (]) 00:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: =Lawmakers Call for Investigation Into Embattled OAS Boss|A military coup in November forced Morales to resign early and flee the country.
:::::::::: Roger that. Done and {{done}}
:: |: sources |date=Jun. 2023}}</ref>
::@] Since you are an experienced editor do you also mind offering your opinion above about whether or not this content should be included? ] (]) 21:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::<ref>{{cite
:::Which editor?]] 23:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: news |work=]|url=https://coha.org/bolivias-struggle-to-restore-democracy-after-oas-instigated-coup/|title
::::@] SPECIFICO. You. ] (]) 23:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:: =Bolivia’s Struggle to Restore Democracy after OAS Instigated Coup|: sources |date=July 9, 2020}}</ref>
:::::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.]] 01:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
::<ref>{{cite
::::::@] That is a useful, cogent summary; distilling the confusion right out of it. ]
:: news |work=|url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/how-the-oas-and-the-medias-lack-of-scrutiny-caused-a-violent-coup-in-bolivia/
::::::Might be helpful for everyone involved since the debate gets muddled easily and that's a sobering perspective. Thank you for the feedback. ] (]) 02:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: /|title
::::::@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. ] (]) 02:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: =How the OAS, and the media’s lack of scrutiny, caused a violent coup in Bolivia| In a world of post truth politics, a false media narrative based on the OAS’s flawed statistics was instrumental in overthrowing a democratically elected government. Now Bolivia faces the consequences|: sources |date=25 November 2019}}</ref>

::<ref>{{cite
== Lead section and list inclusion criteria ==
:: news |work=]|url=https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/03/06/wapo-prints-study-found-paper-backed-undemocratic-bolivia-coup/|title
A. Per ] (a guideline), this list should probably include selection criteria. The guideline says in part
:: =WaPo Prints Study That Found Paper Backed an Undemocratic Bolivia Coup|date=Mar 6, 2020}}</ref>
:{{Blockquote|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.}}
::<ref>{{cite
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 ] commenters have described the event in those terms. But I'm open to other ideas.
:: news |work=]|url=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2021-0245_EN.html|title

:: =MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Bolivia and the arrest of former President Jeanine Añez and other officials with request for inclusion in the agenda for a debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law pursuant to Rule 144 of the Rules of Procedure|whereas after the elections of 20th of October 2019, Bolivia experimented a violent coup, which saw manysupporters of President Evo Morales, indigenous population and human rights defenders violently killed by the military and members of Morales' Movement for Socialism (MAS) party persecuted by the right-wing oppositionincluding by acts of violence such as beatings and harassment, with high-profile politicians’ homes being torched.|
B. Per ], its ok to list alleged events with inline attribution. In relevant part this guideline says
:: whereas Nov. 12 2019 a military coup forced Evo Morales to exile himself in Mexico; whereas on the same day Jeanine Áñez, a senator from a minority extrem-right party, auto-proclaimed herself President (with no constitutional right to so) of Bolivia with the support of the military and without constitutionally required quorum;|: sources |date=27.4.2021
:{{Blockquote|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.}}
:: }}</ref>
So where historians disagree or for recent events lacking sufficient historian analysis, inline attribution allows us to include ''alleged'' coups.
::<ref>{{cite

:: news |work=]|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/943/text
C. Re the title, I'd be OK changing the title to ] or ], if we can agree on specific listing criteria.
:: /|title
] (]) 00:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: =H.Res.943 - Calling for the annulment of the Monroe Doctrine and the development of a "New Good Neighbor" policy in order to foster improved relations and deeper, more effective cooperation between the United States and our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors.
::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. ] (]) 02:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: |Whereas, in late 2019, a military coup was staged against the elected Government of Bolivia following unfounded claims of electoral fraud made by an OAS Electoral Observation Mission, while the subsequent coup government received support from the Trump administration and OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro|: sources |date=Jun. 2023}}</ref>
::::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 ] given that none of that stuff is confirmed by reliable sources.] (]) 03:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: <!-- READ THE TALK PAGE BEFORE INCLUDING BOLIVIA.
:::::No, makes no sense.]] 03:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: I ALREADY READ THAT AND AS I AM A LAWYER AND I LIVE IN BOLIVIA I KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO REASONS TO NOT INCLUDE THE COUP IF BOLIVIA THAT YEAR, BESIDES IT IS SO PARTIAL OF YOU TO NOT INCLUDE THAT!!!!! AÑEZ DIDN'T HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE PRESIDENT AND SINCE THE RIGHT WING THREATENED THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATORS (ALL OF MORALES PARTY) THAT HAD THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE PRESIDENT THOSE RESIGNED WERE FORCED, SO THE RIGHT WING CREATED AND AMBIENT TO FORCE AÑEZ POSSESSION AS A PRESIDENT AS NO OTHER SENATOR HAD THE FREEDOM TO ASSUME THE PRESIDENCY. EVEN THE PARLIAMENT COULDN'T JOIN IN THE CONGRESS BECAUSE THE POLICE DIDN'T LET THEM IN.
:::::::Your reasoning is less than impressive.] (]) 03:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: YOU COULD CHECK WIKIPEDIA ABOUT THE MASSACRES, SO YOU CAN'T DENY THE BOLIVIAN COUP WITHOUT BEING PARTIAL WITH THE ONES THAT OVERTHREW MORALES
::::::::@] ] is even less impressive. ] (]) 04:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:: --> ] (]) 03:00, 12 July 2024 (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. ] (]) 04:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
:::::::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 ] which separately lists people accused, convicted, and exonerated.] (]) 04:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}</s>
:::::::: Since no one is discussing any conspiracy theories (other than JFK, which you brought up) see ] ] (]) 05:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:::There's no doubt you can find sources that list it as a coup - but that's never been the issue. The point is that its status as a coup is disputed. See the parent article. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 07:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, I've just noticed you're engaging in block evasion; striking the above comment. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:34, 16 October 2024

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 is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
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 CL‑class
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
CLThis article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.
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

Archiving icon
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.

I beg of someone to change the Kyrgyzstan May 6th 2023 Coup Attempt to June 5th 2023.

This has been bugging me for weeks and honestly I thought someone would change it but it still says May 6th I have looked through all the Sources and none of them state that it had taken place on May 6th in fact this source: 

https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-security-services-arrest-alleged-coup-plotters-from-obscure-party

that was provided specifically states that it was announced in a June 5th statement. I ask someone please change this and thank you. IEXISTISWEAR (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Decembrist Revolt in Russia, 1825

I think this should count as a coup d'etat, specifically a failed barracks coup, given that I have read most sources listed in the other Wiki on the subject (Decembrist revolt) and it is literally called a 'failed coup' in the beginning of the article. Open for discussion, would like to talk about this. -shadowm Shadowmetallic (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

yes. It is. Please add it. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Falsely describes January 6 as a coup

This has to be the first time in history that someone is accused of attempting to overthrow a government while being quoted as stating "we are the party of law and order" and publicly demanding his followers to go home. PointingOutBias (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

We tend to call that "being untruthful". Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not our call -- scholars of political violence list it as a coup. But it doesn't say that Trump was in on it. Feoffer (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Actually, if you see our extensive discussions last year, no scholars of political violence list it as a coup. If you look at the citations of Jan 6 in this article, none are from coup scholars. That's why nobody last year could agree to making this article into a list based on criteria from scholars of political violence. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Can everyone agree to remove the justification for it being on this list and leave it for the article Qwerty786 (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking for Ukraine 2014 Coup d'état

I was attempting to self-educate me on the 2014 events but found no entry in here. 2003:EB:6F07:CF00:6360:7712:13C0:7D29 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be the Revolution of Dignity, it wasn't a coup. Zaathras (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there an explanation in the linked article why it is not seen as a coup, even though it is seen as one by some politicians and journalists? I found no explanation in this list, nor in the linked article. The latter is pretty large, possibly I missed it! 2003:EB:6F07:CF00:D37D:A4FC:E53C:E92C (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
If you found no explanation in the linked article then either failed to read it, or failed to understand it. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Euromaidan is classified as a coup in both the Powell & Thyne and the Cline Center CDP datasets. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Your first link titled 'Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset." It does not include 2014.
Your second link refers Misplaced Pages and the first link. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
First, please actually click on the P&T updated file ("Dataset 2), as it continues to be updated thru 2023. Second, your characterization of the CDP dataset is disingenuous -- their references in the sourcebook always include at least one primary source, and for Ukraine they include three (WSJ, Telegraph, and CSM). A reference to WP and a previous dataset serves as a source aggregator, as you should expect it does with every such reference. We reviewed coup datasets extensively last year -- both are respected in their field, and are about the bounds of exclusivity and inclusivity for datasets aggregating post-WW2 coups. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
What are your references and how do they fit to WP:RS? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
You did check the datasets I linked, right? Look for Ukraine, 2014 (the only one listed on either dataset). Everything refers to those. If my abbreviations or something else are confusing let me know. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Cline calls what happened in Ukraine a 'Popular Revolt' not a type of coup—blindlynx 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
"The typology and operational definitions of the coup categories are provided below." SamuelRiv (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
we would need more robust sources than mentions in datasets to include it here....the cline codebook uses wide definition of 'coup', which makes sense given the kinda stuff this dataset is intend to be used for (i suspect the same goes for P&T) but typically the def they use for popular revolt (An irregular regime change driven by widespread popular dissatisfaction expressed through large-scale civil unrest. An event falls into this category if a large-scale popular rebellion overthrows existing leader, forces their resignations, or elites use irregular means to force leadership changes in order to conciliate the populace. It is not a popular revolt if elites overthrow incumbents they consider “soft” on dissent in order to facilitate a crackdown.) is not typically used for coups ... —blindlynx 01:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Please review my previous comments, then look at P&T. I have addressed this. If you are interested in this topic, we went over this quite exhaustively and exhaustingly in discussions last year, which are linked in the section above. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The database/dataset doesn't fit WP:RS. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
How? To support what text? What are you trying to argue here? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
To classify Euromaidan as a coup. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
First note that I never said any text should be added or that language should be changed. All I said was that X is in Y and Z datasets. I'm not keen on adding content -- the article needs a complete rewrite per the WP:LISTCRITERIA guideline.
That said, please actually explain how academic sources are not RS for the article in its current state, because that just seems totally bizarre. We've noted in this article that the definition of 'coup' is not fixed. These are widely-cited academic datasets that set particular definitions for 'coup' and make classifications according to primary sources. Are you seriously saying they are not RS when this article does not fix its own definition for a 'coup'? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
If no changes are proposed then there is no need to discuss. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
If none of us are keen on adding it let's leave it at that—blindlynx 19:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bolivian coup of 2019 is not listed

The Bolivian coup of 2019 is not listed and there is a warning about it to see the talk page which is this but you don't mention Bolivia at all

I am Bolivian lawyer and Iwant to add this. I see no reasons for not including the Bolivia coup and in the talk page, which is this, you don't even mention Bolivia. I can say it was a coup, not a riot because the president Evo was overthrown and he had to flee and after that Añez was possessed without following the requirements established in our law which of to be the senator of one of the more important parties in Bolivia, which wasn't the case of Añez.

So I want to include this coup, now tell me what do you need to do this or tell why was it rejected. Misplaced Pages can't re write the history, doing these things of trying to bend the history you are just lacking credibility, just that.

Maybe Misplaced Pages is not free to be impartial, then the case is lost and people should write and expose and investigate why wikipedia denies historical facts.

This is what I want to add, so tell me if that would be accepted if i present the bibliography of serious links.

2019 Bolivian coup d'etat: On November Jeanine Añez, a senator without the lawful requirements (according to Bolivian law) to be president assumed the presidency, impulsed by the organization CONADE, when the legal government of Evo Morales was overthrown and he (and other senators were threatened and resigned) was forced to resign after allegations of fraud that the OAS supported in their inform which was later rejected for independent studies for presenting no real proof of fraud.
The coup included the massacres of Senkata and Sacaba. The fraud allegations were completely rejected when Arce (of the same party of Morales) won the last election.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.115.138.87 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 July 2024‎ (UTC)

From the article you linked (which, it is worth pointing out, actually is named 2019 Bolivian political crisis – it does not have "coup" in its name): International politicians, scholars and journalists were divided between describing the event as a coup or popular uprising. Given how disputed its status as a coup is, I think consensus would need to be achieved first for inclusion. — Czello 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Considering your answer. I included more references that indicate it was a coup.
Besides you didn't say what is the reason for not considering it a "coup" because there were many facts that indicate it was a coup: the commander of army forces invited the president to resign, army forces were used to shut up people and kill, the new president wasn't elected in general elections, the new president didn't have all the requirements indicated in the Bolivian constitution, the legal president was forced to resign and flee to save his life, a plot to accuse falsely to have made fraud was done with the help of OAS, the US and the European Union, the massacres of Senkata and Sacaba to threat and calm people, the supress of freedom of speech, the closure of different media news and even the killing of Argentinean journalists and union leaders, etc.
So I included this with a summary at the beginning and references at the end....
This is what i added and all the references that indicated it was a coup...
THERE’s been a coup in Bolivia. There’s no other word for it. The president was ‘invited’ to step down by his military chief of staff. Police fired live rounds at demonstrators. Some former political leaders were arrested, others were forced into hiding. Media outlets were closed and journalists imprisoned for ‘sedition’. Parliamentarians were prevented from entering the national assembly. A senator declared herself president, and was caught on camera smiling as a soldier helped her put on the sash of office. Generals posed for the camera, too, eyes hidden behind dark glasses.
The mainstream media has carefully avoided the term ‘coup’ in describing the overthrow of President Evo Morales. The first female dictator in South America’s history, Jeanine Áñez, downplayed concerns: ‘A coup d’état is when there are soldiers in the street,’ she said in an interview on 12 November, ignoring the fact that the day before she had asked the army to join the police in ‘restoring order’ in La Paz . Soldiers were patrolling the capital’s streets as she was speaking.
  • 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat: On November Jeanine Añez, a senator without the lawful requirements (according to Bolivian law) to be president assumed the presidency, impulsed by the organization CONADE, when the legal government of Evo Morales was overthrown and he (and other senators were threatened and resigned) was forced to resign after allegations of fraud that the OAS supported in their inform which was later rejected for independent studies for presenting no real proof of fraud.

Extended content
The coup included the massacres of Senkata and Sacaba. The fraud allegations were completely rejected when Arce (of the same party of Morales) won the last election.
2800:CD0:2003:6400:E1E9:DF5F:6D1D:2ABA (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  1. {{cite
    news |work=]|url=https://mondediplo.com/2019/12/02bolivia%7Ctitle
    =Bolivia’s coup|MORALES HAD KEPT THE WHOLE THING TOGETHER. Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, has been forced from office, despite winning praise both from progressives and international financial institutions like the IMF. Why did it happen and how did it all unravel so fast?|THERE’s been a coup in Bolivia. There’s no other word for it. The president was ‘invited’ to step down by his military chief of staff. Police fired live rounds at demonstrators. Some former political leaders were arrested, others were forced into hiding. Media outlets were closed and journalists imprisoned for ‘sedition’. Parliamentarians were prevented from entering the national assembly. A senator declared herself president, and was caught on camera smiling as a soldier helped her put on the sash of office. Generals posed for the camera, too, eyes hidden behind dark glasses.
    The mainstream media has carefully avoided the term ‘coup’ in describing the overthrow of President Evo Morales. The first female dictator in South America’s history, Jeanine Áñez, downplayed concerns: ‘A coup d’état is when there are soldiers in the street,’ she said in an interview on 12 November, ignoring the fact that the day before she had asked the army to join the police in ‘restoring order’ in La Paz . Soldiers were patrolling the capital’s streets as she was speaking|: sources |date=December 2019} }
  2. {{cite
    news |work=]|url=https://nacla.org/review-coup-story-violence-and-resistance-bolivia
    /|title
    =Coup: A Story of Violence and Resistance in Bolivia (Review)|Farthing and Becker’s book sheds new light on the violence of the interim government as well as the heroic resistance of Bolivian social movements|: sources |date=
    December 2019} }
  3. {{cite
    news |work=]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/18/silence-us-backed-coup-evo-morales-bolivia-american-states
    /|title
    =Silence reigns on the US-backed coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia|The Organization of American States had a key role in the destruction of the country’s democracy last November
    |: sources |date=Fri 18 Sep 2020 } }
  4. {{cite
    news |work=]|url=https://www.clacso.org/en/la-union-europea-y-su-actuacion-en-el-golpe-de-estado-de-bolivia-en-2019/%7Ctitle
    =La Unión Europea y su actuación en el golpe de Estado de Bolivia en 2019|Observatorio de Democracia y Seguridad, Bolivia|: sources |date=Jun. 2023}}
  5. {{cite
    news |work=]|url=https://prospect.org/world/2023-04-05-lawmakers-investigation-oas-boss-almagro/%7Ctitle
    =Lawmakers Call for Investigation Into Embattled OAS Boss|A military coup in November forced Morales to resign early and flee the country.
    |: sources |date=Jun. 2023}}
  6. {{cite
    news |work=]|url=https://coha.org/bolivias-struggle-to-restore-democracy-after-oas-instigated-coup/%7Ctitle
    =Bolivia’s Struggle to Restore Democracy after OAS Instigated Coup|: sources |date=July 9, 2020}}
  7. {{cite
    news |work=|url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/how-the-oas-and-the-medias-lack-of-scrutiny-caused-a-violent-coup-in-bolivia/
    /|title
    =How the OAS, and the media’s lack of scrutiny, caused a violent coup in Bolivia| In a world of post truth politics, a false media narrative based on the OAS’s flawed statistics was instrumental in overthrowing a democratically elected government. Now Bolivia faces the consequences|: sources |date=25 November 2019}}
  8. {{cite
    news |work=]|url=https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/03/06/wapo-prints-study-found-paper-backed-undemocratic-bolivia-coup/%7Ctitle
    =WaPo Prints Study That Found Paper Backed an Undemocratic Bolivia Coup|date=Mar 6, 2020}}
  9. {{cite
    news |work=]|url=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2021-0245_EN.html%7Ctitle
    =MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Bolivia and the arrest of former President Jeanine Añez and other officials with request for inclusion in the agenda for a debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law pursuant to Rule 144 of the Rules of Procedure|whereas after the elections of 20th of October 2019, Bolivia experimented a violent coup, which saw manysupporters of President Evo Morales, indigenous population and human rights defenders violently killed by the military and members of Morales' Movement for Socialism (MAS) party persecuted by the right-wing oppositionincluding by acts of violence such as beatings and harassment, with high-profile politicians’ homes being torched.|
    whereas Nov. 12 2019 a military coup forced Evo Morales to exile himself in Mexico; whereas on the same day Jeanine Áñez, a senator from a minority extrem-right party, auto-proclaimed herself President (with no constitutional right to so) of Bolivia with the support of the military and without constitutionally required quorum;|: sources |date=27.4.2021
    }}
  10. {{cite
    news |work=]|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/943/text
    /|title
    =H.Res.943 - Calling for the annulment of the Monroe Doctrine and the development of a "New Good Neighbor" policy in order to foster improved relations and deeper, more effective cooperation between the United States and our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors.
    |Whereas, in late 2019, a military coup was staged against the elected Government of Bolivia following unfounded claims of electoral fraud made by an OAS Electoral Observation Mission, while the subsequent coup government received support from the Trump administration and OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro|: sources |date=Jun. 2023}}
There's no doubt you can find sources that list it as a coup - but that's never been the issue. The point is that its status as a coup is disputed. See the parent article. — Czello 07:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, I've just noticed you're engaging in block evasion; striking the above comment. — Czello 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: