Template talk:Coup d'état

Categorizing the 2021 USA coup as a self-coup?[edit]

Should the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol be characterized as a self-coup in the template? It is described as such by multiple reliable sources, but the marker for self-coup isn't present next to it in the template. ProbablyNovarian (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I don't agree with calling the capitol incident a coup at all.

To me, the whole incident was just a protest that escalated out of control. This is just my biased interpretation (I could very well be wrong on this), but I don't think Trump himself or anyone in his inner circle, actually intended for his supporters to storm the capital when organizing that rally. I believe his intentions where to simply gather up a group of supporters, and have them voice their anger on what they perceived to be a fraudulent election. In other words, when Trump told them to "fight like hell", I think he meant was just be extra persistent in their picketing. Unfortunately, radical elements within the protest hijacked it, and rallied their peers to attack congress.

The "sources" that are labeling the capitol riots as a "coup" are sensationalizing for their own political agendas. Coups are organized operations carried out by opposing factions within a government. Almost always with the support of kingmaker institutions like a military, as what we've seen in Mali and Myanmar. Not angry street protesters/rioters/whatever you want to call them, with an inkling of support from a figure head. It's honestly sicking to me on how politically minded editors have turned the articles into their own soapboxes. They have tainted Wikipedia's credibility as a nuanced and neutral resource.

As a side note, just to ensure that someone with ax to grind doesn't twist my words around, I don't stand with Trump on how this at all. Honestly, he handled the situation quite deplorably. Trump should sicced the National Guard the second the protests turned awry. However, for better or for worse, Trump is very receptive to those that that favor him. He is also a very emotion driven man. Thus, he couldn't bring himself to properly crackdown on his supporters. If didn't let his favoritism tendencies get the better of him, he probably would be in a better state now. Randomuser335S (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2021

  • We should focus less on the politics and more on what academic and scholarly sources are saying. What it says regarding social scientists doesn’t seem to have changed: there is still no consensus. Not sure if a template requires consensus or not. Here is what I posted last year:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1004720516
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1004720516
This is what your source says:
Some social scientists define coups d’état in ways that require the perpetrators to hold formal positions within the existing national government. We do not. In the Cline Center’s approach, the relationship between the perpetrators and the government only determines the type of coup.
Beneficii (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some fairly authoritative government sources, the first being the US House Select Committee and the second being Insider which interviewed anonymous counterintelligence sources in NATO countries in Europe:
https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/thompson-cheney-opening-statements-select-committee-hearing
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attempted-coup-federal-law-enforcement-capitol-police-2021-1

The latter is a secondary source.--Beneficii (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should the events of January 2021 be considered an "attempted coup" in the United States?[edit]

Should the events of January 2021 be considered an "attempted coup" in the United States? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would apply to the listings on Template:Coup d'état and Template:Americas coup d'état. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary question: if it should be listed, should 2021 storming of the United States Capitol or Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election be the target article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC) @Randomuser335S, WhisperToMe, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Goszei, Beneficii, Dinkdull, My very best wishes, Vanny089, Lalichi, and Robertiki: Pinging editors who have previously commented on this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any other country, the president inciting a mob to storm the legislative palace in order to overturn an election would be considered a failed self-coup. However, since whether Trump purposefully incited the riot or not is a matter of debate (even if it seems clear cut to me), I'd say it shouldn't be marked as a self-coup. Nevertheless, I say it should at the very least be considered a coup attempt on behalf of the rioters. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. In Salvador, the president not only made a fiery speech but stormed the parliament with soldiers, and we aren't naming it a coup attempt, because the intention was to threaten it into voting a law, not an attempt to seize unconstitutional power. A coup or self coup is an organised action, not just making a fiery speech that ended up being followed by followers, without any plan. Was Trump in contact with the military or police forces to seize power? Taking control with coordinated armed forces of the strategic places of a state's institutions and its media, that is a coup.--Aréat (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your hurt feelings, the events have also baffled many participants. But an encyclopedia should relay facts not feelings. And personal reading of facts is original research. Also, talk pages are not theme discussion forums, please do not take discussion into them. --Robertiki (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This response is quite condescending and your standard for original research is wrong. The whole point of an RfC is that different editors interpret the same set of facts differently. Loki (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No What kind of 'coup' - Coup d'état, Coup de grâce? The former president has been tried and acquitted of incitement by the congress itself soon after the event, while the extended capitol perimeter was surrounded by a protecrive guard of armed soldiers and installed fencing, under the command of the newly inaugurated presiident as lawfully elected successor to the office of president, against which the former president was publicly protesting. The event is not properly described as 'inciting a mob to storm the legislative palace'. Qexigator (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per the discussion we had at this on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. — Czello 08:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak No I think it was more of a riot that got way out of hand. Also "coup" implies more than just a man gobshiting without thought of where it might lead, it implies a pan, and I doubt there was.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No for now. If sources looking back at it begin to call it a coup then we can have the conversation, but not just because some editors "personal reading" of another article makes them feel one way. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)[reply]
    Not my reading of another article, my reading of the situation. The underlying events were that Trump was trying to, illegally, hold onto his office, and a bunch of his supporters used violence in an attempt to help him do that. That's obviously an attempted coup, regardless of its chances of success. Loki (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In their article Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset, coup experts Jonathan M. Powell and Clayton L. Thyne provide a definition:
"A coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive."
Three parameters are used to judge whether an insurrection is a coup event:
1) Are the perpetrators agents of the state, such as military officials or rogue governmental officials?
2) Is the target of the insurrection the chief executive of the government?
3) Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power?
If the events fail #3, we call that an "election". If the events fail #2 we call that "trying to overturn the election of the new dogcatcher" If the events fail #1 we call that "sedition".
Naunihal Singh, who literally wrote the book on coups, says
"This is not a military coup because that would involve the president using the military or the Secret Service or some armed branch of the government to get his way. Nor would I argue that it is what some people have called a civilian coup or an executive coup. Even autogolpes involve the threat of military force. I think it’s extremely telling that the violence we’re seeing is coming from street protesters whom Trump has incited. This is the president of the United States. He is the most powerful man in the world. And yet he’s not using any of his official authorities. He’s using his bully pulpit to stir up what is a poorly organized ragtag bunch of protesters... I get why people call it a coup: It’s because they want to say it’s an illegitimate power grab... the president engaged in an illegitimate, immoral, and probably illegal attempt to grab power [but] Trump hasn’t really used his official authority."
Seriously. Read [1] and I think you will change your mind and start calling it sedition. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: It was never a possibility that the people now being arrested would become the new government of the United States or that anyone other than Biden would become president on January 20th. This has been discussed at length at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol with a strong consensus against replacing "storming" with "attempted coup". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, none of the people being arrested could possibly have become the new government of the United States, because that wasn't their goal. Their goal was to keep Trump in office. They used violence to do it. I don't see any world where that's not an attempted coup no matter its chances of succeeding. Loki (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an improperly framed RfC. Yes, perhaps it was not "considered" a coup in majority of RS, but it still should be included to this template because it is reliably sourced. Here is proper question: "Should it be included to this template?" I think Yes, because the template includes self-coups, and this is definitely an attempted self-coup, rather than just a coup. Note that the same event can be variously described in different sources as "storming", "insurrection", "coup", etc. If so, it can be included to several different templates. As about views by academics, consider this vew by Ruth Ben-Ghiat: "So, and then we have the age of military coups. And we know that Trump was investigating using the regular armed forces, before General Milley put a stop to that. And so he went with these extremists. But the other thing — which, as we see, are not only extremists, but people inside our institutions.". Please see also discussion below. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A self-coup, or autocoup (from the Spanish autogolpe), is a form of coup d'état or putsch in which a nation's leader, having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances."[2] That never happened, nor was it attempted by any leader. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you cite is a definition of a successful self-coup. That one was only attempted - according the ref above, and really a lot of other refs like [3], [4], [5] (I am not going to copy paste dozens of sources). My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that say it wasn't an attempted self-coup:[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
Key quote: "If you’re wondering whether events in Washington, D.C. constitute a coup, Naunihal Singh, an assistant professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, literally wrote the book. Published in 2014, Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups applies game theory to examine why and when attempts to overthrow governments succeed. In this Q&A, he argues that’s not happening right now ... 'What we’re seeing here is better described as an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government. It’s sedition but it’s not a coup'." --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this is exactly what I said above. Same event can be differently described in different sources, i.e. as "storming", "insurrection", "self-coup", etc. This is not a binary classification. It is enough that it was described in a number of sources as a "self-coup" to include to this template. One event can be included in many templates. My very best wishes (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to think that if something is controversial -- some sources say it is in the category and others say it isn't -- it should be included. I think that if something is controversial it should be excluded. Is there a policy or guideline that we can look at to see who is right? Has this even been discussed in an RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my thinking is very different. For example, the same protein can belong to enzymes and receptors which are two different categories of proteins. Consider regulatory protein tyrosine kinases. Now, can it happens that it is "controversial" and someone is saying "no, they should be really classified only as receptors"? Yes, it can. Still, they should be included to the both categories and both templates, at least for the reason of a better navigation and because there are multiple RS saying they are enzymes. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the same protein can belong to "enzymes" and "receptors". And the same events can belong to "insurrection" and "self-coup". But the same events can not belong to "self-coup" and "not a self-coup". If multiple sources including the New York Times specifically said that a particular protein was "not an enzyme" your "the same protein can belong to enzymes and receptors" argument would not make sense. The argument would have made sense if I had provided sources that called it an insurrection -- that doesn't excude it being a self-coup. Instead I provided sources that say it wasn't a self-coup or any other kind of coup. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me give you a much closer and more famous example. The "List of coups" (see List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts_by_country#Russia - Russia), includes October Revolution (#4), and rightly so because it was defined in a number of sources as a coup, even though it is most commonly defined as a revolution. Same may be the case here. There is no need for this event to be described as a self-coup in majority of sources, and this does not have to be a consensus among historians. It just needs to be described as such in a number of good RS, including views historians-experts, such as Ruth Ben-Ghiat (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did The New York Times and other high-quality sources specifically say the October Revolution does not meet the definition of a coup? If so, I will be glad to remove it from List of coups and coup attempts by country. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A revolution is not the same as a coup. A majority of sources describe October revolution as a revolution (hence the correct naming of the page per WP:COMMON NAME). But there is no reason to remove it from the list because the inclusion of the item to the list is supported by multiple RS, including academic ones. Same here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, zero sources that say that the October Revolution does not meet the definition of a coup. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - Reliable sources directly describing the situation as "not a coup". Even by including qualifiers such as "unsuccessful" and "self-coup", the events fall short of the definition. It doesn't appear that any actual plan to dissolve Congress or to seriously disrupt state institutions was in place. Really closer to a riot than to a coup de'etat I have no doubt that some of the people involved in the events considered themselves as part of a coup, but unfortunately for them, that's now really how a coup works. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? Yes, there was a plan. The plan was to pressure Congresspeople and/or Mike Pence to illegally ignore the Electoral College results and appoint Trump president, in support of a broader overall plan by the Trump Administration to pressure anyone who had any power to do anything to illegally ignore the election results and appoint Trump president. It didn't work, and really it couldn't work, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt at a illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction. Loki (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (keep) mostly per My very best wishes. Is the event being described as an insurrection? Yes. Is it being described as a self-coup? Also yes. Is this discussion about whether it was one or the other? No. Iff reliable sources say it was a self-coup, then we should reflect this in the template. Cheers, Dan the Animator 18:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remove from template, keep in categories Thanks Guy Macon and My very best wishes for your comments, arguments, and insights. Having read both of your arguments, it appears that the best thing to do is to leave it out of the template, per Guy Macon's argument, and keep it in the categories, per My very best wishes's argument. Cheers and thanks Guy Macon for including the list of sources below, appreciate it! Dan the Animator 16:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how template inclusion works. When you have multiple sources calling it a coup and multiple sources saying that it does not meet the definition of a coup, you leave it out of the template and include it in the body of the article where the relative strenght of the sources can be explained. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should be left out if the inclusion was supported by multiple RS? What policy or guideline say it about templates? They serve mostly for a better navigation, just as categories. Consider someone who is looking for all events that have been described in the literature as coups. Let's not deprive them the possibility to find what they are looking for. But yes, I know, they will simply use Google. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should be left out if the inclusion was supported by multiple RS? Because exclusion is also supported by multiple RS. The New York Times, quoting an expert who literally wrote the book on coups, says that is was not a coup. In the body of an article we can explain what the different sources say. You want us to state in Wikipedia's voice that something is definitely true when it is very much in dispute. This is a clear violation of WP:V. I am not going to argue with you any more on this. This is the last response you will get from me. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A huge number of subjects (including those in science) are subject of disputes. But this does not prevent from presenting them in a way that would be convenient for a user of information resources. What that would be? If an item A was described in some sources as belonging to category X and in others as belonging to category Y (assuming that X and Y are not mutually exclusive from position of mathematical logic), then it should be included to the both categories in an information resource. This facilitates navigation and provides more complete coverage. The binary classification does work in biological systematics, but this is not a good approach for information resources in general. Sorry, but I am simply thinking from a (bio)informatics perspective. But to put it simple, once again, consider someone who is looking for all events that have been described in the literature as coups, someone else looking for rebellions, etc. They should find their items if they have been described as such in the literature. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - keep. No sense to hold a double standard, the goal of the insurrection - no matter how badly thought out - was to disrupt the democratic process and hand control back to Trump. Also this wording is sourced. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Was an attempted coup to disrupt a peaceful transition of power. Labelled as a coup in multiple sources. Albertaont (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and remove - I don't agree with calling the capitol incident a coup at all. To me, the whole incident was just a protest that escalated out of control. This is just my biased interpretation (I could very well be wrong on this), but I don't think Trump himself or anyone in his inner circle, actually intended for his supporters to storm the capital when organizing that rally. I believe his intentions where to simply gather up a group of supporters, and have them voice their anger on what they perceived to be a fraudulent election. In other words, when Trump told them to "fight like hell", I think he meant was just be extra persistent in their picketing. Unfortunately, radical elements within the protest hijacked it, and rallied their peers to attack congress.
The "sources" that are labeling the capitol riots as a "coup" are sensationalizing for their own political agendas. Coups are organized operations carried out by opposing factions within a government. Almost always with the support of kingmaker institutions like a military, as what we've seen in Mali and Myanmar. Not angry street protesters/rioters/whatever you want to call them, with an inkling of support from a figure head. It's honestly sicking to me on how politically minded editors have turned the articles into their own soapboxes. They have tainted Wikipedia's credibility as a nuanced and neutral resource.
As a side note, just to ensure that someone with ax to grind doesn't twist my words around, I don't stand with Trump on how this at all. Honestly, he handled the situation quite deplorably. Trump should sicced the National Guard the second the protests turned awry. However, for better or for worse, Trump is very receptive to those that that favor him. He is also a very emotion driven man. Thus, he couldn't bring himself to properly crackdown on his supporters. If didn't let his favoritism tendencies get the better of him, he probably would be in a better state now. Randomuser335S (talk) 25:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that say the event was not a coup:

I have another twenty or thirty sources if the above are not sufficient. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Nobody is calling it a coup, only more extremists people are calling it that. --Yilku1 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The key question is: how can one call it a self-coup when there is no reliable evidence of Trump ordering the military or police forces to seize power? @Guy Macon:, I think you should list academic sources too. --Minoa (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most RSs do not consider it a "coup" so not worth mentioning on this article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The worst case scenario is that Trump tried to intimidate legislators in order to secure his continuation in office despite Biden fairly winning the elector college. Winning elections through intimidation is does not meet the bar. The Southern Democrats for example for years denied votes to African Americans. An actual coup would have resulted in a dictatorship. I am looking for something like the 1992 Peruvian coup d'état, where the president suspended congress, purged the judiciary and ruled by decree. TFD (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – Reliable sources (news and academic) do not seem to describe it as a coup attempt, they explicitly say the opposite. Volteer1 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as Guy Macon has shown it does not fit the definition of a coup. Thus, the fact that some sources call it that is irrelevant. It simply shows that the authors don't know what they are talking about. This was an insurrection, not a coup. --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an attempt to overthrow a duly elected government by interfering with election results with the tacit support of pols is definitely a coup FiduciaryAkita (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it's good to remember that this is a navigation box. Its job is to help people find articles on a topic. So it's reasonable to be liberal with what goes in so people can use it to navigate Wikipedia quickly and not be going "oh, what's the name of the article, what do Wikipedia call it". In other words, I think it's reasonable to include in this box what you might call "coup-type events" that people could be looking for. Imagine a politics student in 2031, who might now be six or seven years old, asked to write an essay on coups. Will this be something they consider? Of course it will. Blythwood (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it will be needed in 2031 we can add it then, but please remember WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the actions have been called a coup by various reputable sources. –– Elishop (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They have also explicitly been called not a coup by sources provided by Guy Macon. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And there are plenty more. The page itself states "Numerous scholars, historians, political scientists, and journalists have characterized these efforts to overturn the election as an attempted self-coup by Trump and an implementation of the big lie" so perhaps it is time to reexamine whether it should be included on the template. - Relinus (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think one of the challenges to the idea that the Capitol riot was an attempted coup is that in the current American political environment, things can get very emotional, and that is something that I know that I have to handle with care. I have to note that according to A loose necktie, calling it a "coup" or an "attempted coup" could fail WP:SHOCK and to empower those who would have had it accomplish what it pretended to. However, I agree that the Capitol riot was an exceptionally nasty domestic terror attack. --Minoa (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I read MOS:SHOCK but it appears to apply to images and does not seem relevant here, is there another MOS you meant to refer to? As for empowering those who perpetrated it, I feel the opposite is true. Not calling it a coup normalizes it, making it sound like just a protest that just got a bit out of hand, thus making it more likely to happen again. Relinus (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to feel that it is case of "damned if we do, damned if we don't", and therefore this is something I cannot determine alone. I am aware of the counter-argument that calling it a coup risks "empowering those who would have had it accomplish what it pretended to". --Minoa (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia[edit]

Hi @Panam2014:. I see that you reinstated Tunisia in the template. I didn't want to insist to remove it again, but it seems the addition has been disputed again by another user. The main issue is that the crisis is not widely accepted as a coup, and this is something exemplified by Germany statement, saying "We don’t want to speak of a coup d’etat". I felt it was important to elaborate on this reasoning. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova and Germany[edit]

To distinguish these plots from actual attempted coups like the Soviet Union in 1991, what symbol should I use to indicate a foiled plot that was busted before the suspects tried to put it into action? --Minoa (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the bar should be higher and said articles should not be included in the template, since they are more fittingly described as conspirations, but a symbol could definitely be thought out to include them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could consider your criteria and explore the idea of splitting the template into one for coups and coup attempts, and another for notable failed plots. What do you think? --Minoa (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an existing template with this criteria? If not, I'm confident that it would have plenty of potential good entries. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it looks like it is a new idea. --Minoa (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would only ask to take care against original research, but other than that I would give my greenlight. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created a prototype navbox at User:Minoa/sandbox#Failed coups, but the navbox cannot go live until more failed plots are added. --Minoa (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Minoa: The navbox maybe could include the whole 20th to continue populating it. I also thought that there could be a navbox overall that could include prominent plots such as the Gunpowder Plot, but I'd be worried that it instead is a very broad scope, prone to speculation. Best regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think attampts should stay in this navbox, but no plots that never started, like germany in 2022. there is a big difference if you have actual armed resistance to a government or just people planning to do so in the future. imo Germany, Moldova and Montenegro should be removed asap, them being in this navbox really paints the wrong image, even the 2021 USA thing that's not in here, was closer to an actual coup then those three Norschweden (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Micga, Paine Ellsworth, 180app, Braganza, Minoa, Smeagol 17, P4p5, PalauanLibertarian, Aonadh nan Gaidheal, and Omnipaedista: I wanted to ping you to know about your thoughts on this discussion, as well as a higher bar for the inclusion of items in this template per WP:COUP, which would mean the exclusion of political crises and uprisings. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps alleged coups (note alleged, not foiled) could be removed while foiled coups could be given a symbol of its own, such as a crossed C (ȼ) or a crossed bar (⟊) as a middle point between the other symbols. While skimming through some articles I noticed that not only Moldova and Germany but also other African countries (e.g. Zimbabwe) allege that these attempts took place with no real evidence to back them up in what appear to possibly be political stunts.
Alternatively, the template could be divided into different sections, with the alleged coups in a lower, collapsed section. This could lead to less speculation on what could and could not be added to the template. 180app (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am against including plots - especially the German one which had no actual chance of even happening in the first place Braganza (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also against adding such plots/conspiracies to the template. If there's no attempt, it remains a plan/conspiracy. -- P4p5 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorgonopsi: Hi! Thank you for your last contributions. I wanted to ask you to take a look at this discussion, as well as related ones in this talk page. We have tried to keep a high bar for what is considered a coup and what can be included in this template, including previous uprisings in Peru. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

heres the sources for kyrgyzstan[edit]

[1][2][3][4][5] Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.euractiv.com/section/central-asia/news/30-arrested-for-attempted-coup-in-kyrgyzstan/
  2. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2023/06/06/dozens-arrested-in-kyrgyzstan-for-alleged-attempted-coup-days-after-eu-leaders-visit
  3. ^ https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-detentions-planned-coup-suspects/32445285.html
  4. ^ https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-security-services-arrest-alleged-coup-plotters-from-obscure-party
  5. ^ https://www.euractiv.com/section/central-asia/news/30-arrested-for-attempted-coup-in-kyrgyzstan/

Guatemala[edit]

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/oas-condemns-attempted-coup-guatemala-2023-12-08/ https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231208-guatemala-prosecutor-s-office-says-election-null-and-void https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-67667041 Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already beat me to Kyrgyzstan Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: what do you think? --Minoa (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Minoa and Gorgonopsi: Many thanks for the ping. At first glance, this seems like a legal/judicial dispute, more similar to a political crisis. We should usually beware when the military is not involved, but if more sources start using it the situation can change.
I'd have to take a closer look at Kyrgyzstan to learn better about the situation. Bestw wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan 1995 coup attempt[edit]

Can you add the 1995 Pakistan coup attempt to the template? 207.34.95.174 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it to {{Plots and conspiracies}} because it was foiled at the planning stage. --Minoa (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for doing that. 207.34.95.174 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you remove the 2022 Ukraine coup d'état because it was actually a plot and was also foiled. 207.34.95.174 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Coup_d%27état&oldid=1208775398"