Wikipedia

Talk:List of coups and coup attempts/Archive 3

< Talk:List of coups and coup attempts
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 49.188.220.81 in topic No consensus on 2021 American coup
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

What is a "coup" in the age of Trump?

Latest comment: 2 years ago28 comments11 people in discussion

We need to think differently about what we normally associate with the word "coup" and get out of that tiny box that only sees a coup as the taking of power by a military overthrowal of another person in office. Because Wikipedia uses all RS, not just scholastic ones, we should follow what RS say when describing the following actions by Trump as a "coup":

Trump tried to "recoup" (=to "regain something lost or expended") an election he lost by lying about his loss and refusing to relinquish power. He violated the Constitutional rules of play and adopted an illegal course of action one normally sees in other, usually third world, nations where the one in power refuses to relinquish power after their rightful term of office has expired. We have always called that a "coup". Just because it often is aided by the military doesn't change what's at stake. It is the transfer of power which is at stake. When it doesn't happen properly, that's a "coup". What happened here is now being described by RS as a "coup", so start revising your way of thinking, because it no longer applies. It's outdated.

When someone improperly takes or keeps power, they are preventing the rightful owner of that power from exerting it, and that's a "coup". Trump's attempt was a failed coup, and what Bannon called a "bloodless coup" turned out to not be so bloodless. People were injured and died, and many lives and careers are permanently damaged. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, we should be careful here. I don't know that we've crossed the threshold to say that Trump was involved in a coup. But we clearly have crossed the threshold that a subset of Trump supporters planned and participated in a classic coup. Guilty pleas have been received, BLP and V are met that a coup occurred. Feoffer (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
we should (obviously) follow the WP:Reliable sources and as some of you know, I have started logging them in my user space (here). Please stop by the talk page to contribute references of any perspective.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Valjean is correct that “Wikipedia uses all RS, not just scholastic ones”. However, that changes somewhat when scholastic ones are available. Per WP:RS, “Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available….” According to many scholars, a “coup” is something orchestrated by the elites within the government. Some scholars have recently taken a broader view. They have often taken a broader view for reasons unrelated to 1/6. One academic study examined the reasons for the broader definition, and concluded that it’s because whenever any phenomenon decreases in frequency the term for that phenomenon is often broadened to include more members.[1] Whatever the reason, we have to figure out how to handle the scholarly split, and comply with WP:RS. I previously started a conversation at WP:RSN over a month ago about whether a particular Congressman’s opinion is a reliable source for purposes of this list, and it was a good conversation. It may be time for another conversation at RSN. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
What RS is under dispute that we need RSN's opinion? What relevant expertise could they possibly contribute that would be relevant to this discussion next to them reading dozens of papers in the literature like we have? I don't understand your issue with the literature -- is it the use of a dataset itself that's distasteful at this point? If not, there are basically three to choose from in the literature, and only one if you don't want people coming in crying every five minutes. And there's no reason a table can't list all three. But pick something -- make a decision. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
According to Professor Powell in 2021, “We provide a simplified definition of ‘illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive.’ This builds on decades of scholarship, is used in hundreds of studies, and is close to other coup definitions.” Do you agree that Professor Powell and the scholars he refers to are taking a narrower view of “coups” than the Cline Center? This constitutes a scholarly split, no? If we are to follow scholarly consensus, then in my view that means listing only coups that the Powell Camp and the Cline Camp agree are coups. You disagree. Why not consult RSN? It’s their policy that’s at issue here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
(If it were a "split") is RSN supposed to somehow magically determine the "most reliable" between two experts within a specialty academic field? By what voodoo are they able to do that?
Back to reality, do we seriously have to go back to the Dr. A/B/C example on what academic consensus does not mean? Where are P&T and Cline in disagreement? Where have they disagreed on anything of this nature? They are two different methodologies that are explicitly excluding or including certain types events for the purposes of making a useful dataset (as with CSP). Scholars use the P&T dataset for different purposes than the Cline dataset. Something categorized as a "dissident auto-coup" in Cline is excluded from P&T, but that doesn't mean that either disagrees with the other's categorization. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Professor Powell says, “Many labels have been placed on what happened at the Capitol on January 6. While dramatic, the event does not meet the criteria for inclusion in our ‘coup’ dataset. ‘Sedition,’ or ‘insurrection,’ sure, but not coup.” If “not coup” then we shouldn’t list it here, but if “coup” then we should list it here. I don’t buy your Dr. A/B/C theory: sure, the latest authority is generally controlling but we are talking about substantially simultaneous authorities. What RSN can bring are more perspectives to bear on a difficult question regarding their policy: when two scholarly list-compiling camps deliberately use different criteria and definitions for a “coup”, should we follow them when they disagree about whether an incident was a coup, or only when they agree, or something else? I’m sure that all of these scholarly lists have useful purposes given their respective particular criteria, but not so much that we should have a separate section for each of them, and yet RSN may take a different view in agreement with you instead of me. Another coup compiler (Monty Marshall) says, “A coup d'état necessarily involves the military — either directly or indirectly.”[2] Dr Monty G. Marshall is director of the Center for Systemic Peace. I don’t believe that’s in agreement with Cline at all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I've been mentioning CSP (Marshall & Marshall) in every post -- how have you missed that? Regardless, this is not difficult: one table -- three columns for the major datasets, and each event gets a check under the columns that include them -- no extra sections. You also appear to have completely misunderstood the Dr A/B/C analogy. It has nothing to do with the latest authority -- it has nothing to do with authority at all; it's strictly about utility and scope. And if you can't comprehend how scholars can make datasets with different categorizations but not actually disagree, then I don't know what to tell you. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Sure, one table with columns and check marks sounds good. I’m not sure the number of major datasets is only three but it could be. I’m aware that sometimes scholars make random categorizations to facilitate analysis. But this doesn’t sound like a random categorization: “A coup d'état necessarily involves the military — either directly or indirectly.” A danger in conflating Marshall-type coups with broader Cline-type coups is this: if scholars continue to treat them all as “coups” then political actors will begin to treat them as equivalent, and the actions of a few rioters unaffiliated with the government could be used to justify counter-coups staged by government officials. Anyway, I agree to your table proposal FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH. Briefly describing why the datasets have differences would also be useful (i.e. they use definitions different from the one we presently advertise in the lead). Incidentally, per the 2020 article by Marsteintredet and Malamud that I’ve already linked, “labeling an event as a coup may generate political actions of grave consequences such as the withholding of aid, the suspension from international organizations, the triggering of international sanctions, and even foreign military intervention.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I did read "Coup with adjectives" when you posted it. It makes interesting qualitative points, but I'm skeptical about the quantitative conclusions due the amount of noise and the very low correlations all around. Anyway, nobody said these were "random" categorizations except apparently you, now. Marshall's quote from a newspaper (not an academic RS) is not the same as his more general definition in the CSP dataset. And there's not really a "Cline-type coup". Cline defines a wide typology of coup, they don't separate events into "coup" and "not coup". Nobody serious in their right mind would conflate an auto-coup or a conspiracy with something in a CSP or P&T dataset, which are binary (or ternary) datasets for numerical models. As far as the tendency to use such classifications for political purposes that Marsteintredet & Malamud suggest, it remains to be seen whether that tendency is actually significantly increasing (and this one very tentative noisy analysis does not prove this -- even excellent data would not be enough until multiple studies support those conclusions).
As to whether these are the correct three datasets to use, CSP and P&T are clearly the most cited, updated datasets out there by far; however I can't figure out a way (or get outside access into) Cline's citation count, if someone else can. It's very possible that Cline's academic impact is minimal and it simply has an outsized media impact, both because of its larger broad research group with a flashy website UI and CC license, and because of its 1/6 turn. As far as others, we both mentioned Colpus, but that seems to have only a handful of citations (4 on Google, 3 on WoS - not terrible for a 2021 paper though); then there's Bjornskov & Rode 2020 which has nearly 100 citations, but it's an update to a well-established mult-tier poli-sci dataset, to which they also add a coup dataset (which, like Cline, is not binary but focuses on typology, and is somewhat narrower). Only a few of the papers that cite them do so for the coup set alone. Others I've found are specialty sets -- military coups only, or regional -- or have not updated in the last decade. Regardless, even if you do now think you would support a dataset table of some sort, it seems everyone else has safely ignored this line of discussion. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the exchange of views. Feel free t0 re-start the conversation at any time, and I'll try to respond more fully. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't predict accurately the outcome of all of this. I do know that trying to put Donald Trump in any ideology box, will be problematic & this includes anything related to the 45th US president. Is he a demagogue? most likely. Is he a coup leader? you're gonna run into resistance on that one. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

One clue might be whether the putative leader -- Trump-- is indicted or, more importantly, convicted for sedition (which would be the charge I think if he intended an de facto led a coup). Technically, per BLP we are not supposed to accuse people of crimes unless they were convicted. If we say its a coup, Trump must have been the leader. Else there was no leader and how can you have a coup if its a spontaneous or inchoate event.
It is very unlikely that Trump will be convicted, as he stayed within the nod-and-wink and but-what-I-meant-was boundaries, I think. So... legally he will have been cleared of being a coup leader (or, more likely, never charged). Doesn't that make it not a coup? Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Depends which of the definitions of “coup” we use. The various pertinent definitions are quoted in the external links. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Can't look into the crystal ball with Trump, but non-prosecution and even acquittals do not prevent inclusion when supported by RSes. Many coups are successful, others are never prosecuted, and still others result in acquittals from friendly judges and/or jurors. Feoffer (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
If we use the definition of a coup as an attempt to overturn the will of the citizenship, wouldn't that include thousands of elections? For example, until the 20th century, no elections had universal suffrage, U.S. blacks were stopped from voting in many states, suppression of voting by minorities continues and many countries, such as Iran, do not have transparent voting. In that case, an election that was not a coup would be an exception. We could have a shorter list of elections and changes of government that were not coups. TFD (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Citation needed... other than you just now, is any RS or any editor talking about such a definition? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC
See the discussion above, where we are discussing the Cline Center definition: "displace the authority of the highest levels of one or more branches of government." TFD (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
You clearly didn't read their complete definition. It's in their code book and on the draft article, both of which have been linked multiple times in the thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Too bad the External Links section was wiped clean of the respective definitions.[3] Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The redacted definition says, “organized efforts to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest levels of one or more branches of government.” So it provides two definitions of which I only cited one. So what? It doesn't have to be both but either one to meet the criteria. TFD (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Fits self-coup remarkably well, which reminds me of the jokes section in an Edinburgh newspaper after one example: Q. Why is the King of France more powerful than the Pope? A. The Pope must govern through his bulls, but the King of France can make a single coo dae it aw. . . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "failed self-coup" (which is a type of coup) is the correct term for Jan 6. [4] Levivich 00:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I know they have it as such but the problem with that is I don’t believe they have connected Trump with the violent leaders like messages, emails, contact etc. They have a lot of unethical behavior from him but nothing signifying him organizing by himself to unleash a violent or even a non-violent self-coup. 98.216.87.171 (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Some people call this an attempted coup. OTOH, see "Right-wing coup that shames America" (Guardian, 2000): "There has been a right-wing coup in the United States. It is now clear beyond any doubt that the winner of the Presidential election was Al Gore." Maybe we should have another section listing U.S. elections that the other side claimed was a coup. TFD (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I've disengaged from the discussion because it's clear that nothing was ever going to change, but the moment editors want to actually do something with reasonable detachment from pet biases, past and future, we can get something up withing a day. Changing global guidelines on list articles won't solve the problem since the proposal is just to create criteria, and here, now, "criteria" have been discussed for months. What seems odd to me is that for all the effort people are going through to get coups included, no one has gone through the datasets and started adding the hundred-and-some documented coups since 1950 (with RS included) that are still omitted from this list. Anyway, a draft replacement article has been open to edit this whole time, which gives a general idea of what the academic dataset(s) + free-for-all appendix section format can look like. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This article should be deleted because the criteria for inclusion will always be subjective. That's partly because there is no clear definition of a coup. So there's no end to this discussion except that every four years, we can add a new U.S. presidential election to the discussion. TFD (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok or just pick a single published academic survey (or two or three) that updates and leave it at that, nothing more nothing less, no exceptions, no whining. See the comparison to GDP lists I made previously, or to net worth or basically anything else, and those definitely are based on many subjective metrics. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

October Revolution

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Russian October Revolution of 1917 was coup. In my opinion. It has the hallmarks of a coup. It was primarily a fight (an a short one) between soldiers. The article itself calls it a revolution, but then says "It took place through an armed insurrection in Petrograd", the armed component being initially and mostly (altho not entirely) soldiers. According to that article, the coup was provoked when "In the early morning of 24 October (O.S.; 6 November N.S.), a group of soldiers loyal to Kerensky's government marched on the printing house of the Bolshevik newspaper...", followed by "At 10 a.m., Bolshevik-aligned soldiers successfully retook the Rabochiy put printing house...". Soldiers, note, not civilians. In other words, at this point, it was was initiated by part of the army (under direct orders from Lenin's central committee, not spontaneously) standing against the government army.

Throughout the rest of the day, there were sporadic clashes "between Red Guard militias aligned with the Military-Revolutionary Committee and military units still loyal to the government". Whether these Red Guard militias were actual army units or semi-military civilian groups somewhat analoggous to the Proud Boys etc. except more organized, I don't know. They were's spontaneous groups of civilians.

Clashes. But the next day, "the Bolsheviks led their forces" against the government. How many of these were actual army units I don't know, but then a section of the Russian Fleet arrived (including marines), and these were definitely military units, acting under command, opposing the government. The Kronstadt sailors joined the coup (or revolutions), and "The Red Guards systematically captured major government facilities, key communication installations, and vantage points with little opposition. The Petrograd Garrison and most of the city's military units joined the insurrection against the Provisional Government." Still, as far as I can see, nothing involving the general populace. OTOH, "Railways and railway stations had been controlled by Soviet workers and soldiers for days [previously]"... civilian workers involved here.

Anyway, then "A final assault against the Winter Palace—against 3,000 cadets, officers, cossacks, and female soldiers—was not vigorously resisted.The Bolsheviks delayed the assault because they could not find functioning artillery. At 6:15 p.m., a large group of artillery cadets abandoned the palace, taking their artillery with them. At 8:00 p.m., 200 cossacks left the palace and returned to their barracks". (That is, some cadets and cossacks refused to fight for the government.)

Then, "As the night progressed, crowds of insurgents surrounded the palace, and many infiltrated it. At 9:45 p.m, the cruiser Aurora fired a blank shot from the harbor. "Insurgents" not soldiers, but sounds hauntingly familiar to the events of January 6 2022, which is considered a coup (arguable), and then you have a naval ship firing (one shot, but it was key). By early next morning, the government cabinet was captured. AFAIK the general populace of Petersburg did not want this even to occur. All this happened in two days (compare to the American Revolution and French Revolution, initiated by spontaneous civilian uprising and lasting years). (FWIW (not much), List of coups and coup attempts by country does include the October Revolution as a coup (we should at least get our stories straight), but then List of revolutions and rebellions includes it as a revolution/rebellion).

Of course the Bolsheviks called it a "revolution", because of course they would, and so what. Anyway, they key point is not what we think (it's a data point tho), but what important neutral sources say. So let's see. Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

1921 coup in Guatemala

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since I can't edit this article, I ask that someone who can, adds the 1921 coup in Guatemala against Carlos Herrera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Orellana#Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_against_Carlos_Herrera

It does not have its own article but it's mentioned within sections in articles of people involved. Magnús Hjálmarsson (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of coups and coup attempts

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of coups and coup attempts's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NYT":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No consensus on 2021 American coup

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

No consensus have been reached on the many discussion pages about whether this is counted as a coup or not (though I think it is obvious if it is or not), therefore it should not be listed until a proper consensus is reached. 103.244.228.42 (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Even Cato Institute considers it a coup attempt and nobody can accuse them of doing so because of left-leaning politics. [5]https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-it-was-attempted-coup 164.5.201.186 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
You link a “COMMENTARY” article, it is literally someone’s personal opinion and also the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank. libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics and still holds many of its views 2001:8004:4610:C2EC:8135:E8BA:53DF:BA9 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Here is a list of Sources that say the event was not a coup:
49.188.220.81 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree it shoul not be added 2001:8004:4610:C2EC:8135:E8BA:53DF:BA9 (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts/Archive_3&oldid=1233737894"