Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt/Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2022 Peruvian self-coup d'état attempt Castillo TV.png

Constitutional Court of Peru calls for military intervention
Do we have text (and a source) for the reasoning and/logic (e.g., mention of a specific law) for why the constitutional court called the order to dissolve congress illegal? Some sources (e.g. NYT) are writing that BOTH the president has the right to dissolve congress AND congress has the right to impeach the president. Why did one prevail over the other in this instance? Jaredroach (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * if i got it right, the president has only in some circumstances the right to dissolve the congress which weren't given Braganza (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

According to peruvian constitution (article 134) the only case in which the president can lawfully dissolve congress is when it denies the vote of confidence to two president's cabinets. That event never happened, therefore Castillo's decision was illegal. It was a coup d'etat.--Elelch (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Article name
I have no issue with this being called a self-coup, I think it probably fits the definition. However, it concerns me that this is getting hit with that description while we have the titles 2019 Bolivian political crisis and Venezuelan presidential crisis (and especially its sub-article, the absurdly titled 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt). There is plenty of non-Western media that does not call this a coup (and calls the subsequent impeachment itself a legislative coup). To be clear, I think this is a stretch, and that Castillo's actions are a self-coup attempt, and that Western media has this one right, but it seems as though Wikipedia's standard is increasingly that media in the Global North should get per se preference over that of the Global South.

It is clear, definitionally, all three events are coups or attempted coups. However, it is almost an exact mirror image of the Venezuelan crisis (where one branch of government unconstitutionally tried to oust another) and a much less obvious coup than the Bolivian case (where the leadership of BOTH the executive and legislative was forced out with military backing). But Wikipedia calls one, the one attempted *by* a leftist, anti-US leader a coup and refuses to use the term with the other two, which were *against* leftist, anti-US, anti-OAS governments. Again, I think all three events qualify as coups, and Wikipedia should use its own definition of a coup to identify them all as such. But it feels like the line chosen by media in the Global North has become the line Wikipedia uses. Zellfire999 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Tentativa de golpe no Peru: 3 pontos para entender caos político e prisão de Pedro Castillo
 * Presidente do Peru fracassa em tentativa de golpe e acaba destituído e preso
 * These are the two biggest papers in Brazil, both calling it a coup. English sources get used on the english page because the plurality of users only speak English. But that's not to say that other sources aren't extant.
 * Clarin- left leaning paper in Argentina:
 * Golpe de Estado en Perú, minuto a minuto: crónica de un día de caos que terminó con Pedro Castillo preso en la misma cárcel que Fujimori
 * El Tiempo- one of Colombia's biggest papers:
 * Perú revierte el intento de golpe de Estado de Pedro Castillo, ¿qué viene ahora?
 * Q'Hubo - Colombian, has salacious stories almost entirely local
 * El expresidente de Perú, Pedro Castillo, fue detenido tras intento de golpe de estado
 * As far as South America goes I'm only really familiar with Colombia and Brazil, but what Pedro Castillo did is widely declared as a coup. You're free to use any of these sources if you'd like, I'd be happy to translate should you need. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the end, Wikipedia's article names and information come down to sourcing rather than our own definitions. Reliable sources in both Peru and outside of it seem pretty clear-cut around calling this event either a coup or self-coup. While I can't say I know much about internal Venezuelan press, obviously sources outside the country refer to it much more ambiguously. Similarly, the subject of coup vs popular uprising remains deeply contentious in Bolivian press and international coverage of it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are calling it a coup that ousted a president. Also, there is no source about a "self-coup." Talk⁄Louis Waweru 07:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is sadly because pro-US (more precisely, pro-US-mainstream-politics) bias is ignored when establishing whether something is a reliable source. And while these sources may be mostly reliable when describing events, the assumption of their reliability is also silently extended to interpreting events. As a consequence, there is an implicit "something is a coup iff it is called a coup by pro-US sources" soft rule.
 * It seems that the replies above miss the point of the OP, seemingly ignoring what is said already in the first sentence. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the president of the peruvian supreme court called it a coup, it isn't a matter of whether the sources are pro-US. Not that it has been proven that they're all pro-US or that it is a bad thing.--Aréat (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer to look at what local press (assuming its independent) refers to the situation as. For example, Peruvian press seems pretty united on calling this a coup, while Bolivian press, in contrast, is far more skeptical, with even more charitable publications like La Razon presenting mixed view points. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To me it's the other way around, both the Spanish and Portuguese wikis call his action a coup in Wiki voice, it's the English language wiki particularly on the Pedro Castillo page that's bending over backward to call this anything other than a coup, which seems almost patronizing given the fact that the Constitutional Court of Peru and the new President have both termed it as such. Furthermore there's always this argument of "oh we're using predominately english language sources on the english wiki" but I only see one editor here posting South American sources, the only problem I have with the argument is of course on the english speaking page more english speakers more english sources, but if you want more non-US sources, without sounding overly abrasive, please read El Tiempo, read Folha de S. Paulo, find papers published by UFRJ or USP or Universidad de Antioquia use them here instead of making talk page threads about their absence. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have issue on the fact that oncly simple mention is made on the fact that very small mention is made that Castillo's speech not only disolved congress, but also called for intervention on on the judiciary power effectively 199.52.13.135 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the "self-coup" is problematic as is inherently biased against what is an ongoing pattern of parliament and president battling using the same articles in their constitution. The reporting shows that which side is right has countless interpretations. It also shows the congress has 1% approval rating among voters, is hostile towards Castillo, and has tried this twice already. To call the lawful use of Article 134 a self-coup is imaginary and unsupported. No response validates the "self-coup" verb, which is invented in the title. Where does "self-coup" inherit support by default from? We're talking about a democratically elected president whose ousting has resulted mass dissent causing civic breakdown with dozens of dead protesters, asylum for the ousted president, and regional peers all calling his ousting a coup. We have many leaders of the Western Hemisphere calling his removal a coup, and there are none calling his invocation of Article 134 a self-coup. Either side has credible support for their view of defending against a coup. It's bullshit to pick a side. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 06:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In line with the page "2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis" wich describe Martín Vizcarra dissolution of Congress, and is certainly not named "President Vizcarra self-coup", and in line with the Wikipedia aim to maintain a non-partisan description of events, and especially current highly controversial and conflictual events, I am also in favour of renaming this page to something like "2022 Peruvian Constitutional Crisis" while also acknowledging that several sources and political actors have described it as a "Self-coup attempt".
 * Snarcky1996 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"Lead figures"?
Aníbal Torres and José Williams are listed in the infobox as "lead figures" in the event, but they aren't mentioned in the article body at all. So what makes them lead figures? If there's nothing to say about them, perhaps they should be removed. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Plan Verde
During the presidential administrations of Humala, PPK and Vizcarra, Fujimori was not a majority, even during the government of the former who led the congress was the Gana Perú ruling party. Put better sources that seek to relate the Green Plan with later assumptions. They are mixing data on purpose. — LLs (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mensaje a la Nación del presidente Pedro Castillo, 7 de diciembre 2022.webm

Radical change by a user
A user is radically trying to change this article from, a self coup to his own intepretation of all of this being a "constitutional crisis" as per his comment. The article has long been fine, without any edit wars, and backed up by reliable sources and posted on the news page. Now this guy is trying to convince everyone that it was lawful. He has been warned by me,, , and reported on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring, for breaking WP:3RR, which he again did here,. He has reverted more than 6 times in a day. He rejects seeking a consesus, only stating that his edits is right to everyone, that all scholars, reliable media that have branded it as a coup are wrong, and he is right, stating he knows more than the whole media. Although scholars repeatedly say it was unlawful, just as the constitutional court said, as no vote ever occured. As he is unwilling to seek a consesus, I will start a discussion here, and add in my opinion on the report.BastianMAT (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias and lack of any representation for opposing views
This doesn't meet any of wikipedias quality guidelines for bias. It presents the entire topic from a completely one-sided point of view (that Castillo attempted a coup). There are 33 countries in latam and 14 countries have condemned the removal of Castillo as a coup, not his actions. This is nearly half of the region in opposition to the contents of this wiki article stated so matter-of-factly! The lack of quality standards on wikipedia lately, with incredibly biased articles like this one, are a very large contributor to the growing lack of faith people have in wikipedia when it comes to any political topic. This entire article should be reworked from the ground-up without so clearly taking up one side or it should be deleted. 2A02:C7C:4681:6000:8832:4547:80B6:6C90 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppetry: On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is unclear how does your comment relate to the topic. Could you please elaborate? 176.62.33.75 (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Monroe doctrine
When it comes to foreign relations issues, wikipedia unfortunately becomes a sock puppet of state department echoing the views of the usa administration. Pretending that USA controlled media are reliable sources leads to atrocities like this article. 5.55.122.178 (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * shut up donkey Carlos Jesús Vitorino García (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposition to rename the page to "2022 Peruvian Constitutional Crisis"
In line with the page "2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis" wich describe Martín Vizcarra dissolution of Congress, and is certainly not named "President Vizcarra self-coup", and in line with the Wikipedia aim to maintain a non-partisan description of events, and especially current highly controversial and conflictual events, this page should make instead reference to these events as a "constitutional crisis" while also acknowledging that several sources and political actors have described it as a "Self-coup attempt". I submit this proposition up to debate here, please make your contribution, without calling each other either "Marxist extremist" or "CIA puppet". I am myself, you would have guessed it, in favour of renaming it and reformulating the sentences in the article to better acknowledge that the Crisis extend beyond Castillo attempt to dissolve Congress and call for a Constituent Assembly. Snarcky1996 (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah this absolutely should be modified, due to the bias that comes along with the word coup. - sincerely a wikipedia user 136.167.85.195 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. I was like what the heck is a "Self-coup", are there non "self-coups", is there an "others"-coup? lol. Is that not just an invasion? or war then? Or political interference" as the term goes.  So what would a "self"-coup be?  Sounds like a way to introduce double speak. I support this as it at least makes more sense under this proposed naming. CaribDigita (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Self coup are coup d'état made by individual already head of state/government. Castillo was head of state and illegaly dissolved parliament, institued a curfew and called for constituent election, going against the constitution on all three point. We've got many sources calling it a coup, including the peruvian supreme court. The title thus fit the events.--Aréat (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting how, despite the the fact that analogous article-naming arguments can be used, the article on the 2019 event in Bolivia somehow lacks "coup" in its title. Almost as if a recent event can be called a coup only if it does not align with the interests of the USA politics. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it makes more sense for Wikipedia to use similar language to describe similar events, rather than sensationalist media titles 136.167.85.136 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First, the article for 2019 Bolivian political crisis does not have "coup" in its title because there has not been consensus to do so after multiple long and heated discussions on its talk page over the issue. Second, the two events are not similar at all. Article titles should reflect how most reliable sources refer to the event regardless of what anyone here personally feels about the event itself. StellarHalo (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of the 2019 Bolivian Crisis, I personally rather compare it to the dissolution of the Peruvian Congress by Vizcarra in 2019, named as a Wiki article: "2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis", despite Vizcarra's actions being broadly the same than those of Castillo here (albeit not exactly the same, it should also be precised). Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying that the dissolution by Vizcarra is the same as what Castillo wanted to do shows that you don't know anything about what happend and should just up before talking about what you don't know. What Vizcarra did was legal and following the constitution, what Castillo did was illegal and against the constitution. Yilku1 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt → 2022 Peruvian political crisis – Seeing the recent discussion regarding various governments not recognizing the Boluarte government, users raising concerns regarding bias, the precedent of the 2019 Bolivian political crisis and also looking at the WP:Coup essay, it may be warranted to change the title of the article to 2022 Peruvian political crisis. WMrapids (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - This article more so focuses on the actions by Pedro Castillo on December 7, while the 2022–2023 Peruvian protests article focuses more on the aftermath of Castillo's actions. If this were just a one-time occurrence like the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, then a move might be more appropriate. But, since this is just one incident during the wider Peruvian political crisis (2017–present), I think it's best Estar8806 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Would a title like 2022 Peruvian Congressional dissolution attempt or 2022 Peruvian presidential crisis be more accurate?--WMrapids (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First one wouldn't fit as it's not only an illegal attempt at dissolution, but an illegal one at imposing a curfew and calling for a constituant assembly to change the constitution. The cosntitution didn't allow that. Besides, it wasn't just a crisis, but a coup d'Etat as characterised by the sizeable amount of source and legal autorities in the country.--Aréat (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support per nom. ---   Tbf69   P &bull;&#32;T 19:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources as well as the peruvian Supreme Court call it a self coup. As for the bolivian events, they're simply not the same at all. There isn't ground for a move.--Aréat (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's simply your interpretation of it. The Supreme Court of Peru should not be our most guiding reference when it's a question about Neutral point of view. See also WP:Coup. Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not my interpretation, but that of the numerous sources, including those of the spanish wiki. You can't cast aside the opinion of a Supreme court because it doesn't agree with you. The neutral point of view is using the term vastly used by the sources who call it a coup.--Aréat (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging users who were previously involved in similar discussions         --WMrapids (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Support for consistency- if Bolivian and Venezuelan coup attempts are crises, so is this. However, my preferred solution would be to label all as coup attempts, which they all definitionally are. Zellfire999 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? None of these exemples are the same, while sources and supreme court call it a coup.--Aréat (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Some sources, not all of them. Plus, the Supreme Court of Peru should not be our most guiding reference when it's a question about Neutral point of view. See also WP:Coup. Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of source call it a coup, including autorities such as the supreme court. What are your sources saying it isn't a coup? And as said above, you can't cast aside the opinion of a Supreme court because it doesn't agree with you. The sources must be follwoed, and they clearly call it a coup--Aréat (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose Self coup are coup d'état made by individual already head of state/government. Castillo was head of state and illegaly dissolved parliament, institued a curfew and called for constituent election, going against the constitution on all three point. We've got many sources calling it a coup, including the peruvian supreme court. The title thus fit the events.--Aréat (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support Indeed that would make for a more "balanced" presentation of the events that occured, and would be in line with the names of the articles describing the dissolution of the Peruvian Congress by Martin Vizcarra in 2019 (named "2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis", not "Vizcarra self-coup"), or the political crises of 2019 in Bolivia and the one ongoing in Venezuela, to cite the most obvious other exemples that come to mind. Also considering the WP:Coup article, as already noted, it should be renamed. Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be balanced to go against the sources which call it a coup, including the supreme court. The dissolution by Vizcarra wasn't the same event, which is why it isn't called as such. He didn't make a serie of unconstitutional attempts at getting power. He called a dissolution on the basis of the cosntitution, and the crisis came from the diverging interpretation of whether the situation allowed had occured. Castillo dissolved without any ground for it, imposed a curfew and called for a constituent assembly, all three things that he didn't have the power to do and were recognized as both unconstitutional and a coup by the supreme court.--Aréat (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation of it, as well as that of the opponents of Castillo, however, the opponents of Vizcarra indeed also called the actions of the latter "a coup". " the crisis came from the diverging interpretation of whether the situation allowed had occured" the same can broadly be said about the actions of Castillo. As for the judgement of the Supreme court, it should indeed be mentioned, but it's not enough to warrant a break from Neutral point of view. Therefore, the page should be renamed. Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, stop calling it an interpretation or mine when it's that of the sources. The page shouldn't be renamed because its title is hwat the sources, both legal and mediatic, use, as provided here. The exemple of Vizcarra, Bolivia and Venezuela are stretching factually different situations, per the sources themselves.--Aréat (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not going to make any pronunciations in favor or against as I'm not well-read enough on the situation to do so. However, from my experiences dealing with the Bolivia issue, I'd recommend a few considerations:
 * Is the term a point of public debate in the country: I.e. Is public opinion relatively split between regarding the situation as a coup vs. not a coup?
 * Is the term 'coup' integral to a legal case: I.e. Are individuals being prosecuted for promoting an attempted coup and would labelling this article as such hurt their ongoing case? Also keep in mind that in country's where judicial independence is lacking, rulings affirming or rejecting the coup theory shouldn't generally be counted as evidence towards a certain side.
 * What do constitutionalists and academics in the country say: I.e. Do most non-partisan constitutional experts consider Castillo's and/or the Congress's actions to have violated the law?
 * Consider that the actions of a government do not necessarily forgive misdeeds by the previous: I.e. Whether or not Boluarte's government has been repressive and/or oppressive, etc., should not have any bearing on whether Castillo's actions constituted coup.
 * Consider that a coup for the right reasons is still a coup: I.e. Whether or not the Congress acted in bad faith and/or purposefully attempted to stifle Castillo's administration has no bearing on whether Castillo's actions constituted a coup.
 * Consider legal ambiguity: I.e. Did Castillo's actions unambiguously violate the law or could certain legal interpretations affirm his actions? Generally refer back to point three regarding the opinion of constitutional experts when seeking the answer to this question.

Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. What are the sources for not calling this a self coup? We've got plenty calling it as such, including the peruvian supreme court, and spanish sources       .--Aréat (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A number of sources already in the article indicate clearly that this is not a unanimous characterization of the events. Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As the move discussion has been closed and no further changes are allowed, I'm leaving a note to point out that participant was blocked for sock puppetering. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Move was hasty and not grounded on sources
Where's the consensus? It was 3 in favor, 2 against and with only a few days of discussion. The users requesting for the change provided no sources, as well as comparisons with events in others countries that were easily debunked as completely differents. Such a change shouldn't be done just because of a one user difference with no backing sources and just a weak number. I'm going to ask for a move review. Aréat (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * for your numerical count, did you include the nom, which also counts as one support with rationale? In any case, [consensus] on Wikipedia is not a head count. After giving due credit to all the forceful opinions, I found consensus to rename. Move review suggests that this discussion take place on the closer's talk page; however, further discussion in a subsection following the closed move request is not unprecedented. If you would rather continue this on my [talk page], let me know. Is there any other way I can be of help?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 13:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A 4-2 opinion after merely three days is still a hasty move. There was very little time to have users involved, and the discussions were still ongoing (!). I don't understand why you felt the need to make the move this soon, when we were still in the middle of arguing the move. Worse, the discussion has clearly shown a lack of sources backing the move, while we have plenty of english and spanish sources calling it a self coup (auto golpe). The move of a politically charged title shouldn't be made just because there were two more users, going against sources. If we were to just follow numbers against sources, that mean for example any sudden influx of russian user could rename the ukrainian war a "special military operation". Important changes shouldn't be done on the whim of a handful of users, but discussions grounded in sources I would like the move to be reversed and the discussion to be allowed to continue normally, more than three days. I could also make a call on related projects to have more users participate. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, the name was changed from a politically non-neutral name to a more neutral and detached one, that is the whole point. Renaming the article about the war in ukraine "special military operation in ukraine" would be to give that article a very politically biased name, it would mean "taking a side" so to speak, while Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is to give the most neutral possible description of political events. And giving that example contradict your reasoning on another point: after all, there is plenty of "sources" calling the war in ukraine a "special military operation", but simply adding these sources and claiming that it is enough to break the neutrality and rename the article "Special military operation in Ukraine" would of course be ludicrous. I think that it would take more than some sources, no matter the level of "reliability" we ascribe to them, to give a, somehow, "controversial" title to an article about a political event, especially a recent or current one. Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This RM began on 25 Feb, a total of eight days before closure, and it was in the backlog list when I came across it.
 * The most recent posts before closure on the 5th were on the 3rd of February, so discussion had stalled.
 * Not for anything, but your sources argument, though clearly strong, was effectively rebutted by a supporting editor.
 * See no "whims" here, we see a local discussion that built and reached a consensus as defined by Wikipedia. It was my objective opinion that a strong enough consensus valued the proposed title higher than the previous title. Hence the article was therefore renamed. Sincere apologies that consensus was not in your favor.
 * This RM has been advertised to both projects at the top of this talk page, WikiProjects Peru and Politics, and additionally on the WP:RM page, since its beginning on 25 February.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 15:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the complete opposite, the name change went from the neutral name factually used by the sources, to a name that is specifically used to deny the event was a self coup, thus "taking a side". IF you prefer, it would be akin to renaming the Russo-Ukrainian War as a mere "conflict", downplaying the event factually being a war. It remind me of when the Algerian war of independence was called just "Algeria's events" by the french governement for decades. Again, we have plenty of sources here describing it as a self coup, while none was presented saying it wasn't. Even eight days is extremely short when the discussion was still ongoing without any factual sources being given for the name change. Where do you see that it was advertised on others projects? I see it in neither Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peru nor Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics You say the discussion has stalled. I had answered all users, providing sources and arguments, and they simply didn't answer. That's not a stall, that's playing deaf. Which is no ground to make a move. Otherwise a few users can ask for a politicaly charged name change, not provide any sources, stop answering the enquiries about their arguments, and within two days of silence from them it's settled? My argument for source wasn't rebutted at all, and clearly this is a discussion that is still ongoing, and should be ongoing rather than ended mid-discussion. There was no consensus, as shown above. You don't have to apologize for a consensus that wasn't there. You cut the discussion before there could be one, which is why I'm sorry to point out you made a hasty move, but I will have to make a move review.--Aréat (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of the WikiProjects, Peru and Politics, as well as most other WikiProjects, have sections on their front pages, such as WP:WikiProject Peru. Move requests are included there when they are first opened.
 * That is an option, yes, and you have every right to do so. Again, very sorry you think you must take that extra step in the process. Thank you for your consideration!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 18:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily opposed to your rationale for closing the discussion, but perhaps it would have been better to instead notify WikiProject Peru to first see if that would stimulate the discussion. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP Peru was notified the first day of the move request, 25 February 2023, in their article alerts. See link above in my response to "Where do you see that it was advertised on others projects?"  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 20:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And both my answer and 's own were left pretty much unanswered. What's the point of opening a move discussion when the answer who are against are ignored, then after barely a few days of being unanswered the discussion is closed as settled? We didn't even have the opinion of      and  who were asked for it. There wasn't even an alert on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, let alone on the discussion page. Things that should have been allowed to happen. Again, I don't understand why you chose to close the discussion after only a few days of discussion, a handful of users, right in the middle of the still ongoing discussion, and without any input from half the people being called to intervene. Please revert and let us discuss the move properly.--Aréat (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do me the courtesy of listening to my words this time: WikiProject Politics was notified when this request first opened on 25 February. On their front page at WP:WikiProject Politics they were notified of this move request. Requested moves may stay open for the usual minimum time of seven days, then they go in the "elapsed" list. Then after 24 hours they enter the "backlog". That's where I came across this request, in the backlog, because it was more than eight days old. After I determined that there was consensus, I saw no reason for it to be kept open, and I closed it. There had been no new posts for two days, so it was not "right in the middle of the still ongoing discussion". I ask you to read and reread this response as many times as it takes for you to get to the truth of this situation. If after that, you are still too close to it to hear my words, then you are free to do as you wish in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Best to you, Aréat!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 01:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aréat The interpretation of the crisis as a "coup" can not exactly be described as a "neutral" stance, to say the least. Not taking sides means not taking sides, you are clearly pushing for a specific interpretation so much so that you even refuse the fact that a consensus was reached here. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. In that case, if the relevant WikiProjects were already given the chance to discuss, I see no issue closing it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is an option, yes, and you have every right to do so. Again, very sorry you think you must take that extra step in the process. Thank you for your consideration!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 18:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily opposed to your rationale for closing the discussion, but perhaps it would have been better to instead notify WikiProject Peru to first see if that would stimulate the discussion. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP Peru was notified the first day of the move request, 25 February 2023, in their article alerts. See link above in my response to "Where do you see that it was advertised on others projects?"  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 20:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And both my answer and 's own were left pretty much unanswered. What's the point of opening a move discussion when the answer who are against are ignored, then after barely a few days of being unanswered the discussion is closed as settled? We didn't even have the opinion of      and  who were asked for it. There wasn't even an alert on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, let alone on the discussion page. Things that should have been allowed to happen. Again, I don't understand why you chose to close the discussion after only a few days of discussion, a handful of users, right in the middle of the still ongoing discussion, and without any input from half the people being called to intervene. Please revert and let us discuss the move properly.--Aréat (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do me the courtesy of listening to my words this time: WikiProject Politics was notified when this request first opened on 25 February. On their front page at WP:WikiProject Politics they were notified of this move request. Requested moves may stay open for the usual minimum time of seven days, then they go in the "elapsed" list. Then after 24 hours they enter the "backlog". That's where I came across this request, in the backlog, because it was more than eight days old. After I determined that there was consensus, I saw no reason for it to be kept open, and I closed it. There had been no new posts for two days, so it was not "right in the middle of the still ongoing discussion". I ask you to read and reread this response as many times as it takes for you to get to the truth of this situation. If after that, you are still too close to it to hear my words, then you are free to do as you wish in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Best to you, Aréat!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 01:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aréat The interpretation of the crisis as a "coup" can not exactly be described as a "neutral" stance, to say the least. Not taking sides means not taking sides, you are clearly pushing for a specific interpretation so much so that you even refuse the fact that a consensus was reached here. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. In that case, if the relevant WikiProjects were already given the chance to discuss, I see no issue closing it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems that Pedro Castillo is being supported in this article

 * OAS Secretary Luis Almagro: "The dissolution of Congress is reprehensible and condemnable from every point of view".


 * Castillo would later explain his actions, saying that he never attempted to subvert Peru's democracy and only sought "to get closer to the people", stating "I took the flag of the Constituent People's Assembly and gave my speech remembering and being faithful to the people who voted for me, who trusted me. ... I wanted to make the political class understand that popular power is the maximum expression of societies. I didn't want to obey the social economic power groups. I wanted to put the people above all else. ... It was my decision. No one else's. I was nervous, but I did it." There is no indication anywhere that the president knew the unconstitutionality of what he was going to do.


 * While Castillo was detained, he denounced a "Machiavellian plan" against him by the National Prosecutor Patricia Benavides, Congress and his former vice president Boluarte. She was the one attacked by the president and the ministers, also by the "alternative press" (press promoted by the former government); I transcribe some (of several) attacks indicated in Resolution 5/2023 of the IACHR/OAS: ''They gave the following as examples: President of the Republic, José Pedro Castillo Terrones. Twitter/August 2: “The Peruvian people want to know why the tax investigation team of the case of ‘Los Cuellos Blancos del Puerto’ has been dismantled. I hereby notify the international community of these very serious events, about which many are silent.” President of the Council of Ministers, Conference in Puno /September 1 “There are billions who are there, in the Judiciary, and the Judiciary demands more budget, that is, of the money of the public treasury, of the money of all Peruvians, they ask for more budget, and perhaps they  are right; but to understand it, the budget is not given, it is not gifted, in exchange for just nothing, the budget is given in exchange for something, and if the budget is given to the Judiciary and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, to the Constitutional Court is so that  they administer justice decently and do not have those billions for taxes there in the offices of the prosecutors; magistrates, that money belongs to all Peruvians.Statements by the President of the Republic of Peru, José Pedro Castillo Terrones - Statements in Tacna /August 28, 2022. “They  request, pay and manufacture effective collaborators, and when they have them inside they threaten them to go out and tell the  people of the Palace: ‘Hey, I’m going to offer you this much, I’m going to pay you this much, but come and become an effective  collaborator and say that Pedro Castillo is corrupt and say that Pedro Castillo has colluded.’” - Twitter/August 18 “Harassment  continues. Judicial harassment, criminal harassment, they don’t mind breaking up a family. They don’t mind leaving our children  orphans. A situation has been designed in order to break us.”Statements by the President of the Council of Ministers, Aníbal Torres Vásquez: Press conference of the Council of  Ministers/August 31 “The fact that these magistrates investigating drug traffickers have been changed, that is leading people to  validly presume that a sector of drug trafficking has invaded a sector of the administration of justice; we have to clean up our  justice system.” Statements in Tacna/August 28: “How is it possible that the prosecutor [of the Nation] has changed the  prosecutor who had been investigating the sister for drug trafficking (…) A part of the administration of justice sector has been  taken over by drug trafficking, it has been taken over by the corrupt and they are the ones who have taken all the money from the State and have not let us carry out fundamental activities. ” - Statements in Tarapoto/August 26 “In the face of these public  complaints of what happened in the Attorney General’s Office, what is the National Board of Justice doing? Nothing, nothing. And  in exchange for what do we pay them those generous salaries they receive?” (Annex 11) To put in context what was indicated  by the Prime Minister, he referred to the resolutions that terminated the appointments of two prosecutors of the Public  Prosecutor’s Office, ordering their transfer to their original prosecutors’ offices. This decision that corresponds to the owner of  the entity and that constitutes an act of internal administration endorsed by Peruvian law. - Statements after CONASEC/August  22: “The great criminals are free, others, out of suspicion, the maximum of preliminary detention is requested, there is an  exaggerated disproportion, there is political persecution, there are other cases in which facts, crimes are invented. Some  witnesses are being summoned and they have told me how they have been interrogated, they do not seek to know the truth, but  to create a crime, you know for what purpose.” New attacks were reported in para. 21 and 27.'' (...)
 * The international media quoted are mostly leftist and try to give Pedro Castillo justification for his actions. He was only trying to escape justice; he tried to illegally detain the National Prosecutor Patricia Benavides through the DINI, and many other things... Case called “military and police promotions” (ascensos militares y policiales): investigation against the President of the Republic,  the former Minister of Defense, and the former Secretary General of the Government Palace. On July 12, 2022, the National  Prosecutor, Benavides Vargas, ordered the suspension of the initiation of preliminary investigation acts and that the  investigation against the president be carried out for the alleged commission of the crimes Aggravated Trafficking in Influences  or Illegal Sponsorship. - Case called “Petroperu”: investigation against President Castillo Terrones. On July 18, 2022, Prosecutor  Benavides Vargas ordered the suspension of the initiation of preliminary investigation acts and that the investigation be carried  out, for the alleged commission of the crime of Aggravated Influence Trafficking. - Case called “Tarata and Chinese Companies (Tarata y Empresas Chinas): involves the President of the Republic, José Pedro Castillo Terrones; the former Minister of  Transport and Communications; two nephews of the President of the Republic, and a group of congressmen of the Republic  (called “Los niños”). The case was initiated, prior to the management of the Prosecutor of the Nation, for the alleged commission  of the crimes of Criminal Organization and Aggravated Influence Trafficking or Illegal Sponsorship. To date, research activities  have been encouraged. - Case called “Ministry of Housing” (Ministerio de Vivienda): The President of the Republic and the current  Minister of Transport and Communications are being investigated. On August 10, 2022, the Prosecutor of the Nation, Benavides  Vargas, ordered the beginning of an investigation for the crime of Criminal Organization. - Case called “Obstruction of the  investigation” (Obstrucción de la investigación): Investigation carried out against the President of the Republic, the President of  the Council of Ministers; the current Minister of Justice and Human Rights, the former Undersecretary General of the Government Palace, and the former Technical Advisor of the Technical Cabinet of the Presidency of the Republic. The investigation was initiated by the proposed beneficiary, on July 20, 2022, for the crimes of Criminal Organization and Personal Cover-up.


 * Mention should be made of the attack on and the rule against the National Prosecutor.
 * See also: https://rpp.pe/politica/congreso/diego-bazan-denuncia-que-jefe-de-la-region-policial-lima-intento-impedir-la-llegada-de-congresistas-al-parlamento-noticia-1452269 https://english.elpais.com/international/2022-12-08/what-led-to-the-downfall-of-perus-pedro-castillo.html
 * The Economist also the country as a "hybrid regime" after the self-coup. All of the above is not mentioned, and I do not know why.

JasonA34 (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You can add your counterpoints, provided they are correctly sourced and that you do not push your interpretation of the events (that's the same rule for Castillo supporters) as THE correct analysis of the events. Please do not forget: Neutral point of view Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * However, this does not excuse that the article is clearly biased towards one side, just compare it with the article in Spanish. That's why I left a template/label in the part that seemed most biased of all (indicating that it should be improved) Armando AZ (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)   has been blocked for sock puppeteering.
 * For example, only two French-speaking media are quoted from what I could read in a section, one of them clearly left-leaning and "anti-American" (as they would say in your country), so it is not an objective media ( besides that only one source is cited).
 * In addition, we are talking about the media being quoted to judge political trends and accuse them of having a "bias", when at no time are the reasons for said "negative" coverage mentioned (I was in Peru, I know perfectly well the errors and failures that the president committed at that time, in addition to the occasional "jewel" in the form of comments and statements, such as Trump). It's just absurd. Armando AZ (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)   has been blocked for sock puppeteering.
 * Your argument seems to be that because these sources are "leftist" and "anti-American" - they should not be trusted, and that we should only include the sources that you deem trustworthy. The only "trustworthy" sources are, apparently, the current Peruvian government that removed Castillo from office, the OAS, the Economist, and the National Prosecutor of Peru. Almost all of whom obviously have a bias against Castillo! Two are currently engaged in keeping Castillo behind bars, and the OAS was founded for the explicit purpose of fighting the Latin American left. None of this is reason for their exclusion, you are welcome to add their opinions of events to the article, provided it is presented as their interpretation, not objective fact.  My point here is that your goal of neutrality seems to be a cloak for your actual bias. Nothing is wrong with having an ideological preference, but pushing your interpretation of events as the true NPOV and slandering reliable left leaning sources is not collaborative, it is quite disruptive. Without a detailed account of why they should not be trusted, I do not trust you to make good faith edits. Le Monde diplomatique is a high quality source according to the consensus of Wikipedia. Please present a factual case for these sources' removal, if it is strong, I will support you!
 * Additionally, your lived experience in Peru holds no weight. We describe the consensus of high quality sources, not a string of anecdotes from anonymous people who were in the area. I live in Colorado and think our governor is a right wing goon - but it doesn't matter. I can't go into his article and accuse all the sources describing him as liberal of bias without a strong case. I don't have one, so I don't. Carlp941 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pushing the OAS or the Peruvian prosecutor as neutral here is very laughable - they are right wing political actors, not neutral. The Economist is much closer to a neutral source, and I think describing Peru as a hybrid regime is more than fair. You are welcome to add these to the article to present the whole picture of the crisis - but this article is not "pro Castillo" - it's quite neutral. Carlp941 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename this article
The name formally should either be its previous name (take the 1992 event as an example) or 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis. Political crisis is a much more vague term and it could possibly get confused with the ongoing crisis.48 Hueb0 (contact me) 21:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. This article is literally biased and the name remains as strong evidence of it. It's extremely confusing for readers when Castillo's actions are the same as Alberto Fujimori's in 1992. LordSidiousOfPeru (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't decide that this crisis is the "the same Alberto Fujimori's [self-coup] in 1992" - that is up to historians, other academics, and other reliable sources. Also, Fujimori was successful and had the support of the military, and was in the context of an insurgency. Avoid WP:SYNTH. If the article is biased (i believe it is not), explain how and cite reliable sources for your claims.
 * I do not support a name change based off weak claims of bias. Carlp941 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have started a move discussion on the issue, where you might be able to elaborate further. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion will not be a procedural close as this discussion garnered larger participation than the previous one.
 * The lengthy discussion here clearly establishes that the consensus is to move away from the current title with virtually no support for the current title. In that light, there were largely two proposals for which the race continued, 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt and 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis.
 * Due to WP:OTHEROPTIONS, this RM will most definitely be moved away from the current title.
 * Out of the two proposals, this page is Moved to 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt without any prejudice against a new proposal for a consolidated discussion regarding moving to constitutional crisis.

2022 Peruvian political crisis → 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt – There have been concerns that the last move discussion was hastily closed ("Move was hasty and not grounded on sources"), as well as requests for restoring the original title ("Rename this article"). A renewed discussion should provide the necessary input. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Per WP:COMMONNAME. There are plenty of reliable English sources that refer to Pedro Castillo's dissolution of Congress as a self-coup:


 * Several non-English sources were also presented in the article's talk page as well.


 * The introduction from the article itself compares Castillo's actions and Alberto's Fujimori's 1992 dissolution of Congress, titled in Wikipedia as 1992 Peruvian self-coup, meaning that there's a precedent for WP:CONSISTENT as well. Additionally, per WP:PRECISION, the current title has ambiguity with the article Peruvian political crisis (2017–present), making it harder to distinguish both. Moving the page to "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt" would solve the issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm aware of WP:OTHERLANGS, but just to provide context of how common the term is, I wanted to point out that thirteen out of fifteen language versions (13/15) of the article in Wikipedia use the term coup or self coup: Spanish, Belarusian, Chinese, Euskera, Farsi, French, Hebrew, Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Vietnamese. Arabic and English are the only exceptions to the norm, the former of which was started by a bot. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * support based on your strong case! looks like this is the common name, WP:COMMONNAME applies, I am fine with the move. Carlp941 (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose exactly one (1) of the source you provided refer to this event as a 'self-coup' and only three of the seven use the term at all—blindlynx 15:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have put the terms in bold, because frankly I don't understand your point. It should be clear that all the sources I provided use the term, and it should be mentioned that they are only examples of the main ones, as there are many others that use the term too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't believe i have to say this but 'coup' and 'self-coup' are different things you are proposing a move to 'self-coup' where as the sources you provided use just 'coup'—blindlynx 18:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Proposing a move to 2022 Peruvian coup attempt would be a bit misleading considering the events, wouldn't it? At any rate, you're free to support that alternative if you wish. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support this. There are enough sources that use 'self-coup' i'm baffled as to why you didn't list them though
 * —blindlynx 18:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I have already stated why in the previous debate, it is really unfortunate that some users really wish to make Wikipedia push a specific narrative while the point of an encyclopedia is precisely to be exhaustive in the presentation of existing viewpoints. The fact that some news medias are of the opinion that this must be qualified as a "self-coup" is clearly not enough to take it at face value and name this article according to this specific description of the events, in my opinion. Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment You should probably assume good faith before making those accusations and dismissing concerns like that. We have provided several sources that use the term, and the contrary hasn't been proven. Here are many other English sources that I found but did not include as examples: --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @NoonIcarus What has not been proven here in my opinion, is if a list of news media sources, no matter how long, that subscribe to a specific interpretation of controversial current or recent events, whatever that interpretation is, is enough to warrant a break from the Wikipedia neutrality principle. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * —blindlynx 18:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I have already stated why in the previous debate, it is really unfortunate that some users really wish to make Wikipedia push a specific narrative while the point of an encyclopedia is precisely to be exhaustive in the presentation of existing viewpoints. The fact that some news medias are of the opinion that this must be qualified as a "self-coup" is clearly not enough to take it at face value and name this article according to this specific description of the events, in my opinion. Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment You should probably assume good faith before making those accusations and dismissing concerns like that. We have provided several sources that use the term, and the contrary hasn't been proven. Here are many other English sources that I found but did not include as examples: --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @NoonIcarus What has not been proven here in my opinion, is if a list of news media sources, no matter how long, that subscribe to a specific interpretation of controversial current or recent events, whatever that interpretation is, is enough to warrant a break from the Wikipedia neutrality principle. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @NoonIcarus What has not been proven here in my opinion, is if a list of news media sources, no matter how long, that subscribe to a specific interpretation of controversial current or recent events, whatever that interpretation is, is enough to warrant a break from the Wikipedia neutrality principle. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, but propose... There was already a discussion about this move, citing precedents such as WP:Coup and the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, suggesting that the use of the word "coup" is not applicable for this article title. Reviewing the Bolivian situation, there is an article by the Associated Press that states, "A coup d’état is commonly defined as a forceful change in government through the use or threat of violence by a member of the state, often the armed forces. ... Bolivia’s armed forces only issued a statement with a 'suggestion' of what Morales should do. Thus, Bolivia’s 'coup' is largely a question of semantics." With the situation in Peru, the armed forces were not even involved and Castillo specifically called on the military to remain in their barracks in order to avoid violence, with Radio Programas del Perú writing "[Castillo called the new general commander of the Army ... to ask him to close the barracks in order to avoid possible clashes with citizens"]. There is also a question about the "vote of confidence", which Castillo claimed to be citing as a second confidence vote surrounding the resignation of Aníbal Torres, allegedly granting him the power to dissolve Congress following a second motion of no confidence. So, as dubious as it sounds, there are still opinions by some that there was some legality to Castillo's actions. These two things, the lack of military involvement or force and the opinion by some that this may have been constitutional, makes the use of "coup" in the title inappropriate.

After reviewing the previous discussions here, one can see a suggestion from rename the article 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis with the precedent of the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis. Both articles, though appearing different at first glance, are actually very similar. With Vizcarra, Congress initially did not recognize his decision to dissolve Congress and nominated their own president, though the military immediately provided support to Vizcarra (a "coup" was also argued in this event). On the other hand, Castillo attempted to dissolve Congress and the institutions did not side with him. There may be conflicting opinions about motive, execution, etc., but that is exactly why the use of "coup" in the tile should be avoided. So, I would like your opinions on this.

Finally, please be mindful that users and projects related to the article were previously notified about renaming proposals and did not participate, so keep watch for possible advocacy edits.--WMrapids (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: WMrapids (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.


 * From wp:coup Use of the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources it's clear that sources refer to this as 'coup' or 'self-coup' with some sort of qualifier. Your argument seem to be based in WP:SYNTH rather than on wp:Reliable sources—blindlynx 15:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, it is not widely described as a coup in reliable sources:


 * Associated Press– They ask a scholar about the event, who specifically states “technically, it is not a coup”.
 * The Guardian– Describes as “alleged coup attempt” and presents the word “coup” in quotation marks. The newspaper also notes the polarization regarding the event and that some believe a coup happened against Castillo, raising the NPOV concerns in WP:Coup.
 * The Financial Times– The articles title says it all, “A coup or not? Peru crisis highlights Latin American polarisation”, again raising NPOV concerns and asking whether it really was a coup.
 * Al Jazeera– Covering the event as being described as a “coup”, specifically in quotations.
 * The Economist– Again, placing the words “coup” and “self-coup” in quotations while also discussing the differing opinions, raising NPOV concerns for potential “coup” in the title.


 * So no, this hasn’t been widely accepted as a “coup” or “self-coup” attempt by reliable sources. WP:Recentism is also mentioned in WP:COUP, so maybe in the future when there are some scholarly mentions of a “coup”, it can be included, but Wikipedia should not stray away from a NPOV and fall for labeling in its article titles.--WMrapids (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problem adding 'alleged' based on wp:RS. The thing is all of the sources you listed use the term 'coup' or 'self-coup', that is how it is described by reliable sources. We should follow them wp:NPOV means personal opinion shouldn't play into this. While scholarly discussion of this would obviously be better it will be a while before there is scholarly consensus. That said there is use of the term 'self-coup' in scholarship.
 * —blindlynx 20:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some notes regarding this, since I went over the sources again:
 * The Guardian's article also uses the term several times without quotes, and notes the comparisons with the 1992 Fujimori coup
 * The AP article that you linked is from Axios, and not the AP. I looked into the linked AP article ("Peru’s president ousted by Congress in political crisis"), but I could not find the professor's quote. Instead, it mentions that the Ombudsman’s Office qualified the dissolution as a coup.
 * The Economist's article actually does use coup in an editorial voice: Peru deserves help from its neighbours, but they have meddled instead. The populist leaders of Mexico and the others support a coup against democracy when it is by one of their own. They reject the political pluralism that legislatures embody, because their implicit belief is that only the president has real democratic legitimacy. Brazil recently suffered an attempted coup by the far-right supporters of Jair Bolsonaro, the defeated former president. Peru is suffering one from the far left. In Latin America the enemies of democracy lurk at both extremes. You might have missed it due to the paywall, which is understandable. You can use methods such as Web Archive to skip it.
 * The Financial Times' article is paywalled too, here's a version that can be accessed: It points out to the countercoup against claims as well, and it doesn't really seem to be taking merit from the definitions, only that nowadays they have become more complicated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I should start by pointing out how different the situation in Bolivia is from the one in Peru. That's the reason why a historical comparison with the 1992 self coup is most ideal; the difference regarding the support of the military is already implicit in the title as "attempt". One dissolution was successful and the other was not, but the actions remain the same. Even yourself first moved the article to name it as a self-coup d'état attempt, which begs the question of why the change of heart happened.
 * Comment: I should start by pointing out how different the situation in Bolivia is from the one in Peru. That's the reason why a historical comparison with the 1992 self coup is most ideal; the difference regarding the support of the military is already implicit in the title as "attempt". One dissolution was successful and the other was not, but the actions remain the same. Even yourself first moved the article to name it as a self-coup d'état attempt, which begs the question of why the change of heart happened.


 * Regarding the dissolution by Vizcarra, as you mentioned, the Peruvian constitution only allows the dissolution of Congress after a second vote of no-confidence. Unlike Vizcarra, this does not seem to be the case with Castillo, which would make the dissolution illegal. There was an argument to support legality its legality, and even in that case coup claims remain. However, I want to clarify that I would support a to start a move discussion in the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis if any editor considers that it should be opened, and I would support said move if it is demonstrated that on an individual basis that it is the WP:COMMONNAME. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * While the rename to "2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis" would solve the issue of WP:PRECISION regarding the Peruvian political crisis (2017–present) article (and I want to thank you for proposing an alternative), it is not as descriptive as a self coup, and we would have to consider how common the term is per COMMONNAME, based on policy. Regardless, I would still like to know what other editors think about the proposal. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NPOVTITLE, ”Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors.” With this title we are describing Castillo’s actions (the attempted dissolution of Congress) when deciding between “constitutional crisis” or “self-coup attempt”, not providing a common name. An example of a common name that might be familiar to you would be the Caracazo and Limazo; these are specific names given to events that became common use. However, when one of the largest English-speaking newspapers in the world describes the event as “alleged” or uses quotations when regarding the event as a “coup”, it is clear that not only do we not have a common name, we don’t have a common descriptor. Knowing this, the more neutral choice would be “constitutional crisis”, especially when looking at WP:POVNAMING; ”Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue”. So, I still stand by the proposal for 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis.--WMrapids (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: just like with 1992 coup, this one was an attempt, he forcefully tried to. And either way if this isn't a good name then constitutional crisis would be better because the name now can get easily confused with the mainline crisis. 17:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pessi69 (talk • contribs)   —  is a confirmed sock puppet of.
 * As noted above about advocacy, please be aware that user Pessi69 was created just days ago.--WMrapids (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can live with either self-coup or coup or constitutional crisis. Constitutional crisis seems to be the best term, as laid out by your case, and previous consensus on wikipedia. I support a name change, replacing "political crisis" with "constitutional crisis" Carlp941 (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: It seems there are a lot of people here trying to whitewash the illegal coup that Castillo tried to do despite being called a coup by all the national press and the courts in Peru. --Yilku1 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Should note to the closer that a move request was just closed on 5 March 2023 as moved to the current title, so technically, this request should be procedurally closed as too soon following a request in which consensus had been achieved. Having said that, it is recognized that a significant number of editors have shown an interest, so rather than close this request, I object to it on procedural grounds. Consensus thought that the current title was the best title only last March, so it's hard to believe that consensus would want to change the title back to what it was in such a short period of time.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 02:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in the introduction, there were concerns that you closed the discussion too soon, that a consensus wasn't achieved and that there wasn't enough participation. One of the participants even was blocked for sock puppeteering later. Several editors in the talk page did not join the discussion, and even though it was argued that related Wikiprojects were notified, none of the participants seem to be a member of either (WP:Peru and WP:Politics). I also have to remind of WP:CCC, consensus changes, and the fact that there is way more participation in this discussion shows that it was a good call to open it, even if it confirms the last outcome. As a last note, the last discussion was opened on 25 February and closed on 5 March, so we'd be talking about two months and not one. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Those particular concerns were answered with editors agreeing that the discussion had not been closed too soon and that the WikiProjects had been notified on the first day of discussion in February. Yes, consensus can change; however, it is suggested that at least one year should pass after a "moved" or "not moved" decision, and that's because consensus rarely if ever changes so swiftly, so we'll have to wait and see. Need also to remind you, editor, that you appear to have added a bulleted support just after your nomination, and that must be changed to a comment, because in move requests, the nomination is considered to be support for the move. I've made the necessary change for you.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 13:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I told you it was closed too soon, mid discussion, with barely a handful of users. The fact this renewed discussion is happening a few weeks later, with many more users and new ones, and is already considerably larger is quite telling that it was indeed closed too soon.--Aréat (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the whole idea is to build an encyclopedia, I think it's a good idea to be patient and wait and see what editors think in this discussion.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 15:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course we're working on an encyclopedia. Waiting for the discussion to properly unfold is what I've been begging you to do, without success.--Aréat (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the policy or guideline on this? I'm not sure "it's just too soon" is a strong objection its own. I think it is especially weak for a current event, but if it's a policy or guideline, I am happy to defer to it. Carlp941 (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There has never been a policy nor a guideline, never a full community consensus for this, although it has been tried several times to come to consensus. So it remains a suggestion in an essay, the closing instructions for move requests found at WP:RMCI. Because of this, reopened move requests almost never actually get procedurally closed. The suggestion is there so that editors' time won't continue to be wasted, and the one year suggested wait is based upon experience with past attempts like this. Your instincts are right, though, that when a current event is involved, things can change rapidly. That's all the more reason to try to practice patience. We are building an encyclopedia, not a news source nor any kind of predictive, crystal ball sort of article for our readers. So far, I think this discussion is proving all this, just as past similar discussions have done. Not going too badly, though, I think editors here are doing a good job under the circumstances. I'll keep a good eye on it, but I won't be closing any more talks here. It's considered bad form to close more than one RM on any given talk page.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 14:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: Per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME from the sources demonstrated by User:NoonIcarus as well as others. Also:
 * Coup is merely an essay and not a policy or guideline.
 * The comparisons with 2019 Bolivian political crisis and 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis are nothing but false equivalences. Neither of those events were similar to this article's subject. Unlike Castillo who not only attempted to dissolve Congress but also enacted a curfew and declared that he will establish an emergency government where he would rule by decree until a new constituent assembly is elected, all Vizcarra did in September 2019 was dissolving Congress and then calling for a new election in January 2020. Unsurprisingly, vast majority if not all of the reliable sources in English do not describe the 2019–2020 crisis as a coup and only includes the word "coup" when quoting the reactions of the opposition.
 * The only thing that matters here is what is the most common and precise term being used by reliable sources especially the ones in English to describe the article's subject. Using a non-precise term for an event that took place over the space of a single day for the sake of neutrality is just WP:UNDUE and trying to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. Other government-related crises had their own unique circumstances in how they unfolded and most importantly how reliable sources have described them. They cannot be used as a precedent for this. StellarHalo (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Restore the prior title. With all due respect to those involved, the March move shouldn't have taken place, it wasn't grounded in solid policy, so it's right that we're here to correct that. The previous name of "Peruvian self-coup attempt" matches what sources say about the incident and is consistent with other namings. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement that the previous name change was hasty, but there's a pretty robust discussion below showing that the name of "Peruvian self-coup attempt" is not the consensus among reliable sources, but the consensus of many Peruvian and the opinion of some international institutions.
 * Many sources are quoting these institutions, merely reporting what the different sides say. They are not using their editorial voice to describe the events as a coup. They are instead referring to the events in their entirety as a crisis or attempted dissolution of congress. I am not totally opposed to using term self-coup as a title, but it's just not what I am seeing as the consensus of reliable sources.  Carlp941 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of "coup" by reliable sources and references provided so far

 * Comment: The move discussions of Operation Gideon (2020) and the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, which dealt with similar issues, used tables to illustrate the use of terms by sources. I thought about providing a similar one that should help with the visualization, with sources from both the talk page and the move discussions:


 * {{Legend|red|Source refers to the dissolution of Congress as coup in editorial voice|border=1px solid #AAAAAA|vertical=0}}
 * {{Legend|#FFFF00|Source uses other terms, besides coup, in editorial voice|border=1px solid #AAAAAA|vertical=0}}
 * {{Legend|#1188FF|Source does not refer to the dissolution of Congress as coup in editorial voice|border=1px solid #AAAAAA|vertical=0}}

One of the things that I missed but were commented by other editors (see the archives) is the use of the term by Peruvian instutions, such as the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman's office, besides Castillo's own foreign minister. I'm not including the non-English sources, which also go at length to describe the situation as a coup.

This should be another demonstration of the widespread use of the term by the reliable English sources. Pinging editors from the talk page and previous discussions that have not participated to share thoughts: --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * support going back to previous title "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt". It's backed by sources both local and international, as well as the peruvian supreme court. The recent move was made mid discussion with no sources provided, only the general feeling that it wasn't fair that a few particular other pages weren't also named coup, which can be discussed on their own pages but isn't an argument here, per WP:OTHERCONTENT.--Aréat (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm curious to see what Peruvian outlets themselves say, it might give better insight from their own perspective. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the last move discussion, provided at least five articles from the Peruvian press, all of which refer to the dissolution as a coup:
 * While we're at it, though, I can comment that both El Comercio and La República, to put two examples, have a whole category each focused in the dissolution and that has the same name: "Golpe de Estado", Coup d'état: . --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, though, I can comment that both El Comercio and La República, to put two examples, have a whole category each focused in the dissolution and that has the same name: "Golpe de Estado", Coup d'état: . --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, though, I can comment that both El Comercio and La República, to put two examples, have a whole category each focused in the dissolution and that has the same name: "Golpe de Estado", Coup d'état: . --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, though, I can comment that both El Comercio and La República, to put two examples, have a whole category each focused in the dissolution and that has the same name: "Golpe de Estado", Coup d'état: . --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, though, I can comment that both El Comercio and La República, to put two examples, have a whole category each focused in the dissolution and that has the same name: "Golpe de Estado", Coup d'état: . --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, though, I can comment that both El Comercio and La República, to put two examples, have a whole category each focused in the dissolution and that has the same name: "Golpe de Estado", Coup d'état: . --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Support: I'm reticent to rehash an argument that I've already made several times earlier in this talk page, so I'll keep my comments brief. The vast majority or Reliable Sources call this a coup, as does the Constitutional Court of Peru. I, in a previous post, supplied a number of RSs from Brazil, Colombia, Peru etc. I see as well as a number of other editors making a strong argument based on how Reliable Sources are terming this event. The counter argument seems to be more petty fogging the question by creating an arbitrary distinction as to whether or not the word coup is prefaced by self followed by some other arguments that lack sourcing. What more is there to say? We follow the sources or we don't and only one side of this discussion seems to be relying heavily on sources. Pedro Castillo was facing an impeachment vote so he dissolved congress, declared that he would "reorganize" the courts and prosecutors office and announced that he would create a new constitution, this was obviously declared illegal and a coup by the Constitutional Court of Peru he was then impeached and arrested when trying to flee to the Mexican embassy to claim asylum. So honestly, what are we even discussing here? Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not so cut and dry. The members of the Constitutional Court of Peru were inducted by the Congress, usually nominated by the political favors the court can do for Congress. So Congress and the Constitutional Court they picked themself tried to change the interpretation of the constitution to prevent Congress from being removed through the "no-confidence law", which Castillo used to justify the dissolution of Congress, just like during the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis. This is why Castillo stated that the Constitutional Court allied with Congress to create a "dictatorship of Congress". If we want to delve further into some conjecture, as you did above, Castillo's closest advisors were unaware of his announcement to dissolve Congress as there was no plan (a "coup" without a plan?), he specifically called for the military to stay in place to prevent violence, he called for immediate elections for a new Congress within the next few months and he said he was dropping off his wife and children at the Mexican embassy to keep them safe, not to leave Peru. So what are we discussing here? That Castillo made an announcement to dissolve Congress, which had been obstructing his presidency, and left the rest up to the people and institutions. That's a non-WP:FRINGE viewpoint that exists.
 * As for the sources, you can see below that the majority of generally reliable sources do not describe the event as a "coup" in their editorial voice. Neither should Wikipedia, per WP:VOICE. WMrapids (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The graph you share is not accurate. The Guardian clearly says in the article that it was an alleged "coup", so they are not voicing that a "coup" had occurred. If you could, please fix this mistake.
 * Also, this shows that there is not a clear consensus by reliable sources that his could be described as a "coup" since, with the "Generally reliable" sources you present, 5 of 11 (or nearly half) do not explicitly present the event as a "coup". Again, using "coup" in the title would be a pretty blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:POVNAMING because we are discussing a description here, not a common name. WMrapids (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I included in the table's hatnotes the sentences that led to the clasification of the articles. In the case of The Guardian, it is not Peru president removed from office and charged with ‘rebellion’ after alleged coup attempt, but rather The public prosecutor’s office confirmed late on Wednesday that Castillo had been arrested and charged with allegedly “breaching constitutional order”, after he was accused of an attempted coup and seen fleeing the presidential palace.. The term is not used with quotes, "alleged" and it quite straightforward, which should amount to editorial voice, but I can still change it if you wish. Still. I don't think that means that the table is unreliable


 * As for the references, the reliability column only shows the status in the current WP:RS/P list. I think that we can all agree that Euronews, Foreign Policy, and France24 are all mainstream reliable sources, and El País is one of the main newspaper in Spain, with a version in English whose reliability has not been put into question. Even in this case, we're talking about 11 out of 15 sources (73%, as I have only counted 4 articles in this case that do not use the term with editorial voice), which is a far cry from how less used it was in related discussions (Bolivia and Venezuela), or how controversial it was in commparison.


 * I also kindly ask you to please not modify my comments . It is a violation of talk page guidelines (WP:TALKO), and it makes comments afterwards more confusing (the 5 out of 11 estimate would have made no sense, for example). I have included in the table articles that you have offered throughout the discussion, but you're free to continue offering more otherwise. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the statement "accused of an attempted coup" is editorial voice by The Guardian? Accusations mentioned in an article are an "editorial voice"? That is what it appears with your "Quotes coup" column as you have included statements from individuals who are directly involved in the event, which blatantly puts undue weight on their opinion. It should be noted that Congress, the Constitutional Court and the Prosecutor's Office were parties to the conflict.
 * Also, sorry about WP:TALKO :) WMrapids (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The table above is not comprehensive and is misleading. Please see the new table below, which only uses generally reliable sources.--WMrapids (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"Coup" or "constitutional crisis"?
It seems that there has been various opinions shared in the discussion above, so this section has been created to assist the closing administrator.

There are two main proposals that have received the most support in the discussion:


 * 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt: Proposed by, who suggests that WP:COMMONNAME would be applicable because of reliable sources describing the event as a "coup", that WP:CONSISTENT would suggest the use of "coup" due to the similarities with the 1992 Peruvian self-coup article and that the "coup" description in the article title would be applicable due to WP:PRECISION, which would clarify between similarly titled article, such as the Peruvian political crisis (2017–present) article. They also suggest that the linked articles in other languages also use the "coup" description in their titles, though the user notes the recognition of WP:OTHERLANGS. (expand/clarify on this summary as you'd like, )
 * I believe this is a good summary of the position and the arguments, thank you kindly for providing it. I would only want to clarify that WP:OTHERLANGS is an argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions, but there isn't anything that I'm aware that is against (or for, for that matter) in move discussions. The point that I wanted to make is that I'm not arguing to move the page only due to the fact that other Wikipedia versions use the proposed name, but rather that I provided it as an example of how common the title is, even in other languages. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add WP:POVNAME here per blindlynx's input below. Even though neutrality shouldn't be an issue given how common the term is, it deals with the positions of WP:NPOVTITLE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis: Proposed by, who suggests that per WP:Coup, the title may violate WP:NPOV and ignore one of the Five pillars as there are widely differing opinions on how to describe the event since there is not a common name. WP:NPOVTITLE states to determine if a title is "derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title" and since there is no common name for the event, the use of "coup" in the title is a description, so per WP:POVNAMING, "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue". WP:CONSISTENT was suggested due to the similarities with the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis article.
 * In addition, made a good point alluding to WP:VOICE: "Editors, ... should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. ... Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.". So, it would only be appropriate to leave "coup" out of title and instead include this description in the introduction, even if it is a widespread view.--WMrapids (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

To organize the choices of support users decide, here are some tags to be used to assist the closing administrator:


 * Coup: to support the move to 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt:
 * CC: to support the move to 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis
 * Other: to support a suggestion of you own (2022 Peruvian presidential crisis has also been suggested, similar to the Venezuelan presidential crisis)

To assist with previously involved users in this current discussion, they will be tagged here:

Thank you to everyone participating!--WMrapids (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support CC Carlp941 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * CC: Per proposal and discussion above. Again, it is also important to note that no military was involved in the events (Castillo ordered the military to remain in their barracks to prevent violence, in fact the Congress-nominated Constitutional Court actually called on the military to act against Castillo), that reliable sources actually don't agree on describing the event as a "coup" and that 44% percent of Peruvian respondents agreed with Castillo, making this a contentious topic amongst Peruvians that definitely raises NPOV concerns if we do not have a neutral title.--WMrapids (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (Coup) Non-support: There are civil coups and "golpes de timón" ("change of tack" un Spanish), let's not forget what Hitler did in Germany too. Invoking emergency powers, trying to shut down parliament and changing the constitution are typical acts of a coup. 186.32.48.176 (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Sock of  has been blocked for sock puppeteering. (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Furthermore, at no time did the troops act against Castillo, it was the police themselves who caught him trying to flee. It may be questioned why he did it (for example, they did promise him support and then withdraw it), but what is clear were his intentions. 186.32.48.176 (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Constitutional crisis" implies that there is a conflict between two existing laws. In this case, what there was was a rupture. 186.32.48.176 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There were conflicts between existing laws regarding the interpretation of the motion of confidence, especially regarding whether they were constitutional at all. That was part of the basis for Castillo's actions.--WMrapids (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tagged that the IP has made few edits outside this discussion. It's also worth noting that the IP was the subject of a sockpuppet investigation. CheckUsers can't determine the identity of IPs due to Wikipedia's privacy policy, but I'm leaving the note here for the closing admin per WMrapids' concerns. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Coup 186.32.48.176 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: 186.32.48.176 (talk  Sock of  has been blocked for sock puppeteering.


 * what does Hitler have to do with this article or how we title it? Hitler also did not come to power via a coup, so it's pretty clear you are invoking the spectre of Hitler to make a dubious moral equivalence between Hitler and Castillo. Please follow Wikipedia policy, not your political preferences. Carlp941 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that the point they're trying to make is that coups do not always need military support and are providing an historical example for it, even if it can be confused with the Godwin fallacy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a poor example that is a classic Reductio ad Hitlerum. Carlp941 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said what it can be confused with, but not the main point. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (CC) Support CC Carlp941 (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg Duplicate vote: (see above)
 * (CC?) Oppose "self-coup", it does not feel recognizable. Rather, it feels like a term that requires explaining, which is not great in a descriptive title. Searching simply "December 2022 President Castillo" on google, I see no use of "self-coup" over the first couple of pages, although I do see a couple of "coup"s. "Political crisis" and "Constitutional crisis" both feel like more accessible alternatives. CMD (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (CC) Oppose "self-coup" as being politically charged; support renaming article 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis per WMrapids above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (CC) Oppose self-coup due WP:NPOV Pessi69 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC) —  is a confirmed sock puppet of.
 * Coup: (Self-coup) per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION, as stated above. Castillo tried to dissolve Congress, which was exactly what Alberto Fujimori did in the 1992 Peruvian self-coup. The lack of military support is already implicit by definition in "attempt", and does not change the nature of the actions. This precedent addresses the concerns of WP:NPOVTITLE. I'm worried that the term "constitutional crisis" has not been demonstrated as the most common term, per reliable sources, and the possibility of WP:SYNTH has also been expressed in the talk page. Lastly, while this is common knowledge in these discussions, I have to remind that the outcome of the discussion should not be determined by an amount of !votes, but by the weight of the arguments based on policy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the use of "coup" has not been widely accepted. Generally reliable sources per WP:RSP (i.e. mainstream reliable sources) even recognize the NPOV issues with calling it a "coup"; The Guardian describes the event as an "alleged coup attempt" while Al Jazeera made sure to place "coup" in quotations while discussing the event. Another concern would be Pedro Castillo is still awaiting to face trial for his actions, so creating a title with "coup" in it would be Wikipedia determining the guilt of Castillo before a trial even occurred. And again, "coup" is not a common name (like Caracazo, Limazo or Andahuaylazo), but maybe a common descriptor at best by some sources, though descriptors in an article title need to be NPOV per WP:POVNAMING. Regarding WP:CONSISTENT, this event is pretty similar to the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis as both events involved the dissolution of Congress, both were described by some as a "coup" and both did not involve the military (one of the main components necessary for a coup). And yes, we can be aware that the !votes seem fairly convinced, especially since some have changed their previous decisions for "coup" to now support CC.--WMrapids (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to the WP:CONSISTENT argument, we already have the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis, but can also add the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, the 1993 Guatemalan constitutional crisis, the 2011–2012 Papua New Guinean constitutional crisis and the 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis. All have been described as coups by some, though they have not had it in their article titles.--WMrapids (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I at least support this. It is better to consider it a blow to the constitution than a "political crisis." I think it is the intermediate option that best fits the case (even so, there are many things to fix in the article regarding certain sources), but it is a way to neutralize it. Armando AZ (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)   has been blocked for sock puppeteering.
 * Another way would be to name it as a "constitutional coup", or also as a soft coup. Armando AZ (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)   has been blocked for sock puppeteering.
 * Comment: I am not swayed by dubious historical analogies. Fujimori's coup was successful and had the support of the military. Additionally plenty of coup attempts have had military support and have failed. That may not be a complete argument against calling it a coup attempt, but it is certainly not "exactly like Fujimori"
 * I am also not moved by WP:SYNTH - no one is synthesizing sources, CC is a widely accepted NPOV term on other similar events. I am particularly sensitive to NPOV in ongoing events like this, and calling it a "coup attempt" does not address my concerns, particularly when precedent is not on your side. I would ask that you present evidence of WP:SYNTH, or come up with a case for why a particular common term (coup attempt) is so necessary to include in the title that it overrides very strong precedent in titling ongoing world events. Carlp941 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You can see 's comment above if you wish to delve into this, and ask them about your concerns. It does not mean denying the use of CC as a term in other articles, but how appropriate it is to use it in this one. Regarding the analogy, if it was so dubious it would probably not be in the article's introduction to start with, added none other by the article's creator and main proponent of CC as a term. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course I placed that to provide some balance to maintain NPOV in the intro. As for the previous title move, that was an issue with Recentism on my part. However, after reviewing the situation and seeing the NPOV concerns shared by other users, I made the successful proposal to move the title to its present form. WMrapids (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not going to rehash this analogy over and over again, so I am going to repeat myself with my main point.
 * I am not swayed by the analogy, and I am not convinced of a strong case for bucking precedent. I would ask that you present evidence of WP:SYNTH, or come up with a case for why a particular common term (coup attempt) is so necessary to include in the title that it overrides very strong precedent in titling ongoing world events. Carlp941 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * (Coup) the problem is that WP:POVNAME is a policy and every single source uses the term 'coup' in some capacityeven the one that says it's not a coup still calles it that! Unfortunately that is what this common name of this event. It's also worth pointing out we shouldn't be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS—blindlynx 15:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not recall WP:POVNAME as a policy, it answers directly to those concerned that the term is not neutral, even if that given the gravity of the actions I argue that the title is descriptive instead of biased. An excellent example of this is the Boston Massacre, it is just the most used term. Any other accepted terms can be included without prejudice in the article's lead. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you read through the policy, this is because the Boston Massacre is the common name given (these names are capitalized because they are common, proper names). Now if this event were to be called "Castillo-azo", or something similar, then that would be a common name, but the description that this event was a "coup" is just that, a description. Using "coup" in the title would not be following WP:NPOVTITLE and would not respect the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. WMrapids (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:POVNAME gives the Teapot Dome scandal too as an example. Capitalization does not seem as a requisite for being a proper name, only usage, as it has been argued so far. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * (Coup support, against CC) what Castillo tried to do was against the constitution he wasn't allowed to dissolve the parliament (yet) and there is no constitutional crisis if all branches of the state (military, police, court) side with the parliament and he was arrest within hours Braganza (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Other naming options could be Constitutional coup and Soft coup, both of which have their own Wikipedia articles and have similarities with the case of Peru.--- Armando AZ (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)   has been blocked for sock puppeteering.


 * This still does not take into account WP:NPOV regarding the weight that the word "coup" has a descriptor. Also, there is not much of a precedent with such descriptors in an article title, so it does not help with WP:CONSISTENT in the same way "constitutional crisis" would. WMrapids (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Two of those that exist are the 1953 Pakistani constitutional coup and the one in Nepal in 2020; the latter being very similar to the case that occurred in Peru. Armando AZ (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)   has been blocked for sock puppeteering.
 * This could be an alternative commpromise, if the community decides so. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As much as I appreciate the gesture towards compromise, the issue is the inclusion of the word "coup" - so this is not a compromise. Carlp941 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Coup: : As stated above, per the sources both local and international, as well as the peruvian supreme court. Proponents of CC provides opinions but no sources, and arguments closing in WP:OTHERCONTENT--Aréat (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court is not cited in the article, but the Constitutional Court (which is a direct party to the conflict and nominated by Congress in a dubious manner) did make such statements WMrapids (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, your argument of WP:OTHERCONTENT would apply towards the original nomination of this move for WP:CONSISTENT by , so I'm not sure that you want to try and make that case. WMrapids (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did mean the Constitutional Court. It's not a direct party, just like a judge isn't a direct party to a trial by simply ruling. As for WP:OTHERCONTENT, it apply against the recent name change which happened before the discussion could unfold, as was pointed out. The arguments weren't based on soruces, only pointing at some others pages which also didn't have coup in their titles.--Aréat (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Coup: For the same reasons as stated above. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Other. The present title, 2022 Peruvian political crisis, achieved consensus in the previous move request. For that reason alone, the current title is the highest and best title for this article above all other possibilities.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 12:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Coup support, against CC. As explained below.--Elelch (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * CC or PC I tend to agree with those advocating for the term constitutional crisis or political crisis. I think these terms are broader and are also more in compliance with NPOV. The fact that some describe the event as a self-coup also features prominently in the lead of the article. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 11:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC) - moved to appropriate section by --WMrapids (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: The two titles that have garnered significant support seem to be 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt and 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis, so it seems like there is a consensus to move away from the current title, but I'm not seeing a clear consensus to move to either of the proposed titles. I think a relist is best here, to see if we can get a clearer consensus – it hasn't ever been relisted officially, despite being left open longer than 7 days. Also of note, a default no consensus close is not an option here, or at least not a good one, per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE; since there was a consensus in the last RM, we would keep the current title upon a no consensus close. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support you in this, and if I may add that under the guide you cited, also called WP:OTHEROPTIONS, it follows that if no consensus remains after this relist period, and if there still seems to be a consensus to move away from the current title, then the closer will be able to choose a new title from among titles that have been proposed. Since there would be no consensus for any particular title, to include the title the closer chooses, any editor would be able to begin a fresh move request at any time to continue this quest to find and put to good use the highest and best title for this article.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 23:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Majority of generally reliable sources avoid "coup" description, some use "constitutional crisis"
Apologies for the WP:TALKO error, but the table provided by is misleading. The majority of generally reliable sources avoid describing the events as a "coup" and if they do, it is described as "alleged" or "accused", not an outright description. Some even describe the event as a "constitutional crisis". Though, through all of this, there still is not a specific common name.

Below I will provide a list of generally reliable sources that avoid the "coup" description:


 * {{Legend|red|Source refers to the dissolution of Congress as coup in editorial voice|border=1px solid #AAAAAA|vertical=0}}
 * {{Legend|#FFFF00|Source uses other terms, besides coup, in editorial voice|border=1px solid #AAAAAA|vertical=0}}
 * {{Legend|#1188FF|Source does not refer to the dissolution of Congress as coup in editorial voice|border=1px solid #AAAAAA|vertical=0}}

Coda Media placed. 27 of 36 generally reliable sources (75% of sources in table) avoid describing the event as a "coup". The majority of sources (19/36) also describe the event as a "dissolution" or the act to "dissolve" Congress. Would also support a title of Pedro Castillo's attempt to dissolve Congress; it is neutral but it is a mouthful.--WMrapids (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Table above updated. 26 of 35 generally reliable sources (about 74% of sources in table) avoid describing the event as a "coup".--WMrapids (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Overall, I wanted to ensure that we are not cherry-picking sources so we can have a more accurate and comprehensive discussion for a consensus, especially since it was pretty easy to find these descriptions from reliable sources (a lot easier than putting together a complicated table). Looking at this initial list of 25 articles only from generally reliable sources, we can see that 18 of 25, or 72% of articles, do not explicitly describe the event as a "coup". In addition to this, 5 of 25 describe the incident as a "constitutional crisis", which is more than articles describing the event as a "self coup". I might add more to this table later, but 25 articles seems like a good start.--WMrapids (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A few notes regarding this:
 * It's worth pointing out that Forbes, Deseret News, NPR and The Daily Telegraph all use the term coup without quotes at some point.
 * The Age, ABC News, the BBC, The Christian Science Monitor and CNN ( all quote coup claims as well, including by Peruvian institutions, recognizing its usage.
 * The use is more prevalent that it appears in the table. Per WP:BLUD, I think I had made my point for the most part. We can continue providing sources, but it should be clear by now that coup is common enough for at least a mention in nearly every article regarding the dissolution of Congress. I also want to stress the caveats with the list of perinnial sources. The fact that there has not been a discussion extensive enough at WP:RS/N does not mean that a particular source is unreliable, specially if it's originally from another language and has editions in English (such as El País), has explained above. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There has not been an attempt of WP:BLUD (funny because I didn't whip up a big, complex table), there have just been attempts to clarify misleading information.
 * Of course some sources mention "coup" in their article because they are including statements from Peruvian politicians, but the majority of the generally reliable sources did not use their editorial voice to describe the event as a "coup". Your inclusion of "well, someone in the article said something about a coup" in the table to justify a non-neutral title is misleading as it gives too much weight to Peruvian politicians who were directly involved in the crisis. Remember, neutrality is a core policy of Wikipedia. There are plenty of other Peruvians (about half in polls) who thought differently, so again, a neutral title is much more preferable.
 * Additionally, generally reliable sources hold more weight due to the consensus Wikipedia already achieved to define their standards and it is apparent that those standards prevented these sources from describing the event as a "coup", with some choosing the more neutral description of "constitutional crisis" instead. If we are to use your same reasoning, then the 80 undetermined sources seen in your archive link describing Operation Gideon (2020) as a "coup" should be enough to open a move discussion of that article to "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt", right? Why is that not described as a "coup attempt"? WMrapids (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of bludgeoning, no need to get defensive. On the contrary, I'm saying that I'm trying to be mindful about it, and that after providing such a table, my following comments will be less effective in conveying my points, so I want to try avoiding repeating myself. You can ponder on how WP:BLUD applies to you, but that is up to you and not me.
 * Real quick, since you brought it up: I looked into the article you linked to back up your claim that "44% percent of Peruvian respondents agreed with Castillo ("¿Cuánta desaprobación tiene Dina Boluarte, el Congreso, Jose Williams y Alberto Otárola?, La República") and I can't find this number anywhere. Quite the opposite, from the sources I've read, even supporters condemned Castillo and prompted mass resignations in his cabinet. The issue has apparently been less divisive than led to believe. 101 members of Congress voted to dismiss him, including 9 out of 15 congress members of his own party, Perú Libre, while only 6 voted against. Politicians in Peru are currently loathed, and there can be people that dissapprove of Bolourte and Congress, asking for their resignation and shutdown, respectively, but that's different from supporting Castillo's dissolution (along with his rule by decree and curfew). Rejection to them is not equal to support to Castillo. But of course, this general sentiment is not reflected only in these actions, but by coverage in Peruvian and overall press in Spanish, which can be consulted above. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the correct link showing that 44% approved of Castillo dissolving Congress and 77% of respondents did not approve of Boluarte assuming the presidency. Also, when one-third of Congress is far right and the majority were his opponents, it’s not that difficult to see what Congress was going to do in response to Castillo removing them from office, especially when members maintain parliamentary immunity in the body. Again, the majority of quality sources use a more neutral description of the event, avoiding the word “coup”. WMrapids (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One-third is still quite far from 101 votes in favor and only 6 against, particularly when all impeachment votes in the past failed, including of most members from his own party (which last time I checked, isn't far right). --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So far you've made a very stronge case for including the term "coup" extensively in the article introduction, which is fine by me. I think the fact that most Peruvian institutions consider the event a coup is pretty vital to mention upfront.
 * But I am still unconvinced on changing the title to anything but constitutional crisis. Your case is made weaker by these sources' varied usage of the term, and the fact the term is primarily used by Peruvian government institutions, who have a vested interest in describing the crisis in the most severe terms possible. No doubt this crisis is shaking many Peruvians and their instutitions to their core, but using the term coup as a descriptor for the entire crisis still seems premature and biased. Carlp941 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a very good point, . The description of this event as a "coup" is more appropriate for the introduction and is welcome there for a balanced point of view. The inclusion in the introduction, which we can all work on together, would be the best compromise overall because the title of the article should abide by WP:VOICE: "Editors, ... should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. ... Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.".
 * If the sources cannot agree on the description, especially generally reliable sources, why should Wikipedia describe this event as a "coup"? Doing so would violate WP:VOICE (see above), WP:SYNTH (users are pushing quotes and sources together to describe this as a "coup") and WP:NPOV (there are varying viewpoints that are not WP:FRINGE who believe a "coup" did not occur). WMrapids (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that 17 of the 25 sources use the term 'coup' in quotes or otherwise the problem is that regardless of it actually being a coup that is a clear indication that 'coup' is the most common name for this event even amongst those sources that don't think it is a coup—blindlynx 16:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned alleged coup in passing some time ago perhaps that might be a good summary title for the time being?—blindlynx 16:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:ALLEGED, “alleged” is best avoided, especially in the case of a title since it would make it more complicated for the reader. WMrapids (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair, thing is that scare quotes 'coup' is the bloody common name for this. I think that particular policy is a good reason to use 'alleged coup' given that it's unfortunately commonly used and we're going to have to explain why it's described as such in detail anyways.
 * On a separate note while i get that there haven't been discussions of them i find it incredibly difficult to believe that Foreign Policy, Human Rights Watch, France24 and RTL are not wp:RS—blindlynx 22:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Quotes do not support editorial voice though, so it should definitely not represent Wikipedia’s voice. If sources were going to call it a coup, they would do it outright. However, higher quality sources have avoided the word altogether. WMrapids (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No they don't, what they support is that 'coup' is the common name. What do you mean by 'higher quality sources' because as i've noted before there is some use of the term in academic sources—blindlynx 21:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts, Carlp941. My position has been expanded in my last comments above. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I have now just seen this. I'll go through them, but if they are saying some along the lines as "described as a coup" or such, they are not using their editorial voice, so they are quoting it as a description by some, even if they are not using quotation marks. WMrapids (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Coup support, so to return to previous title "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt". It is important to consider that the Peruvian Supreme Court, by issuing a judgment validating the arrest of former president Predro Castillo, it described the events as a "self-coup d'état" (autogolpe de Estado) on up to six occasions. One of them (p. 26) states: "However the escape risk is fully substantiated by the fact that he tried to seek asylum to get away from Peruvian justice when the self-coup d'état failed, which was prevented by the National Police". This is the official version of the event, not from the Peruvian government that replaced Pedro Castillo, but from the peruvian judicial branch.  --- Source (Peruvian Supreme Court Sentence): https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/4007085/APELACION%20256-2022%20SUPREMA.pdf.pdf?v=1672347611 --Elelch (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, Castillo and his supporters say that he was not trying to leave Peru, but that he was trying to drop of his family at the Mexican Embassy to keep them safe. Also, the political elite in Peru pretty openly conspired against Castillo during his tenure, so using them as a "source" when they were directly involved in the event in a non-neutral way (the Supreme Court literally called for his arrest) is not the best justification for properly and neutrally naming this article. WMrapids (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog to publish the perception of Pedro Castillo, or worse, your own opinion, which is what you have just reported. Elelch (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not my opinion (Pedro Castillo and 2021 Peruvian general election), but nice try. WMrapids (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I also agree with blindlynx that the majority of the sources use the term 'coup' in quotes or otherwise, so that is clear that 'coup' is the most common name for this event. Consequently, that should be reflected in the name of the article.--Elelch (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And, as I said with blindlynx, the reliable sources themselves do not use an editorial voice describing the event as a "coup", they are only quoting individuals during the typical coverage of the event. Basing the title from comments of individuals in sources instead of from the sources themselves seems like a violation of WP:OR: "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". WMrapids (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Basing the title from comments of individuals in sources instead of from the sources themselves is what you are trying to do, as reflected in your comment above when you say that Castillo "was trying to drop of his family at the Mexican Embassy to keep them safe" (opinión of Pedro Castillo) and "the political elite in Peru pretty openly conspired against Castillo during his tenure" (your opinion and of people parcialized with Pedro Castillo). This is not the way things are made in Wikipedia. Elelch (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this is my opinion. There are plenty of sources showing collaboration amongst the political elite to remove Castillo, just see Pedro Castillo and 2021 Peruvian general election. And actually, providing a WP:NPOV is exactly what we should be doing on Wikipedia, which is why I am advocating for having a neutral title for this article. So while some say that Castillo was attempting to flee, we must also recognize the rationale of Castillo as well in order to provide WP:BALANCE. WMrapids (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The supreme court of a country is not part of its political elite and in Peru, the Supreme Court has established that what Pedro Castillo attempted on December 7 2022 was a coup. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has reached the same conclusion (see below). So, that's the general consensus that should be reflected in the title. Avoid consigning the word "coup d'etat" is precisely the personal position of Pedro Castillo, who continues to maintain that he did not do so. But this is not Pedro Castillo's personal blog, this is an encyclopeia. Elelch (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you are ignoring the WP:NPOV, one of the Five pillars: We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. ... Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. So, if you are going to interpret which sources say what (not all describe the event as a coup), then that does not respect the true goals of Wikipedia. WMrapids (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Further still, on May, 3 2023 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States (OAS) released its report over Human rights situation in Peru, and when the document refers to the events of December 7, 2022, it qualifies them as a "breach of the constitutional order" and as a "coup d'état". Citation: (p.29) "The Commission considers that the decision of former President Castillo did not conform to no constitutional grounds that would enable the dissolution of Congress; neither was constitutionally empowered to order the reorganization of Power court unilaterally. For this reason, it condemns the decision and describes it as a breach of the constitutional order" and "Domestically and internationally, the decision was denounced as a coup d'état". --- Source in Spanish (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights): https://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/2023/Informe-SituacionDDHH-Peru.pdf --Elelch (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this is in the "B. Respuestas de las instituciones ante el rompimiento constitucional" or "B. Responses of the institutions to the constitutional breach" section, with the IACHR instead sticking to the "constitutional" wording itself. The IACHR is not calling this a "coup" in their own voice, instead alluding to this event being constitutional crisis in more neutral wording. WMrapids (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You can see the page 29 where the IACHR states: "The Commission considers that the decision of former President Castillo did not conform to no constitutional grounds that would enable the dissolution of Congress; neither was constitutionally empowered to order the reorganization of Power court unilaterally. For this reason, it condemns the decision and describes it as a breach of the constitutional order". As can be seen, is the Commission that expressly considers that what Castillo did was a "breach of the constitutional order" what is nothing more than a coup d'état. Elelch (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, that is your interpretation. They could obviously describe the event as a "coup" themselves if they wanted to. You don't have to try to do it for them... WMrapids (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is pretty classic WP:SYNTH. You are making interpretations based on your political inclinations, and stating what you believe sources imply, not what they explicitly say.
 * No one disputes the reliability of these sources, no one disputes that plenty describe the event as a coup.
 * The dispute is over two very precise things:
 * - Do most reliable sources explicitly call the events a coup?
 * - If not, should this override precedent to title the events as neutrally as possible?
 * The answer to both questions, in my assessment, is clearly no. Most sources presented that explicitly describe the events as a coup have a vested interest in the arrest and removal of Castillo from office. The Congress that removed him, the Court that publicly called for his arrest, the police who blocked his attempted dissolution, the OAS - a right wing international organization, etc. Their interpretations should obviously be in the article, and in the lead paragraphs - but that should be the end of it. Nearly every other source qualifies it, or says "[x institution in Peru/many observers/etc] describes it as a coup." The main thrust of your argument seems to be, that because nearly all Peruvian political institutions describe it as a coup, and reliable news orgs note this in their articles, we should override neutrality and engage in in WP:SYNTH. That is not a strong case. Wikipedia does not exist to be a referee for political disputes, it exists to describe them in the most neutral terms possible. Carlp941 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are confusing. The court that requested Castillo's arrest was the Peruvian Constitutional Court, while the judgment that qualifies the events of December 7 as a "coup d'état" was issued by the Peruvian Supreme Court. They are two totally different entities. Surprised that this information is overlooked.
 * On the other hand, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (which belongs to the OAS but is not the same) is not a "Peruvian political institution", but rather an international body that is clearly left-leaning, so much so that in the report I cited (the one that describes Pedro Castillo's actions as a "breach of the constitutional order") it severely criticizes the current Peruvian government. Therefore, we cannot question his impartiality.
 * I also see above the effort to make a long list of sources, some of which are not even well known, just for the purpose of biasing the supposed preference of the media not to use the term coup d'état. It is curious that only the English Wikipedia has these problems. Elelch (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is laughable to describe the OAS or any of its institutions as impartial. It was explicitly founded in 1948, with the assistance of the US State Department, to counter communist influence during the Cold War, and has continued to attack left wing governments into the present. Even so, they are still a reliable source, so I will no longer argue with you on this point. Further, I am not going to get into the weeds of each individual source, litigating their bias - because it misses the main point.
 * Here is the main point, in the most plain language possible:
 * No one disputes the reliability of these sources, no one disputes that plenty describe the event as a coup.
 * But there is no consensus amongst reliable sources that these events are a coup. You, and no one else arguing for that term, have demonstrated that they do.
 * Instead, you have engaged in WP:SYNTH - taking what a majority of news sources imply, what a minority of news sources say, and synthesizing it with what Peruvians institutions and the OAS say to call it. That is against Wikipedia policy, and is a weak logical case. Also, the sources listed have readership well into the millions across the world. I am sorry if you are not aware of them, but that is no excuse to slander them. Additionally, they are widely considered reliable - which is part of the point you are trying to argue around, instead of engage with.
 * If Spanish Wikipedia is doing what you wish, that is a problem because they are in direct violation of wikipedia policy. Also, the talk pages aren't your soapbox, please stick to topic at hand. I am asking you to describe a consensus of reliable sources explicitly describing these events as a coup, and you simply aren't doing it. You are attempting to engage in pedantry rather than with policy. Please engage with me on policy grounds and I can be easily convinced. Carlp941 (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in convincing those who have a fixed position. If you believe that the consensus reached in the Wikipedia in Spanish, French, Portuguese, Turkish, Chinese and many others, are wrong, it is your opinion, nothing more. If you think that the article should reflect the point of view of Pedro Castillo, who denies having carried out a coup, that is also your opinion. I have already expressed my support for the proposal to restore to the original title and in the end it will be decided based on the result of the discussion, not based on personal points of view.
 * Finally, I referred to the report of Inter-American Court of Human Rights only to refute erroneous information on your part to disqualify it as a reliable source. It would be convenient to learn more about the IACHR and its leftist leanings, which is why the US has never wanted to be part of it.
 * https://impunityobserver.com/2022/09/01/ideological-hegemony-at-the-inter-american-commission-on-human-rights/#:~:text=According%20to%20Alarc%C3%B3n%2DSalvador%2C%20the,to%20promote%20first%2Dgeneration%20rights. Elelch (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are simply not engaging in this discussion. If you actually read the talk page, you'd see I was initially in favor of moving the page title to include the word coup. I was swayed by arguments based in precedent and policy. My positions on wikipedia edits are in primarily informed by policy. They are not fixed to anything.
 * You are also conflating two different institutions, the IACHR and the IACtHR. The dreck you linked is a smear piece against the IACHR by a libertarian think thank. It accuses the IACHR of being leftist because some of their commissioners support some left wing policies. I know this may be heartbreaking, but left wingers exist in Latin America. Some are even politicians. Having left wingers in an non partisan institution does not make that institution unreliable. Instead of linking hit pieces by partisan agitators, use reliable sources. Additionally, the United States is a member of this commission, and several American politicians have led it. (Digression: By your logic, perhaps this makes the commission too pro-US?) The US, however, is not a member of the IACtHR. I believe you conflated the two because you believe it bolsters your case of "leftist bias" if you say the US didn't join it because it's "leftist." I sincerely hope this is a mistaken conflation, and not deliberate lying in service of your political biases. I would like to assume good faith, but you openly refuse to engage in this discussion.
 * So, do you have an actual case against the IACHR, backed up by reliable sources? I am open to it. Do you have an actual case for retitling this article? Carlp941 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Two WP:RSEDITORIAL articles placed by Elelch

From Elelch (talk) - Moved to appropriate section.--WMrapids (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion ?
So, going through the page, I'm counting : 9 users in favor of returning to "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt" (myself,, , , , , , , ) 5 users in favor of changing name to "2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis" There is a consensus here to change back to "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt", even more so considering the recent change was made on a mere 4-2 decision before most users here could participate. Also, I begged back then to let the discussion go on instead of abrubtly closing it mid discussion after a few days. There obviously was a need for it to go on judging by the reopening very soon after, and the lenghty debate that ensued with the participation of many more users. Considering this, I think it would be better if someone else made the decision this time. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please be aware of WP:VOTE; many of the users in support state "same as above" and do not make any mention of the WP:NPOV issues. Also, you are excluding the opinions of others, including (CC) and  (other). There does not seem to be a clear consensus, which is why users recently suggested relisting the discussion. WMrapids (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you deferring the decision, thank you for that act of good faith. However, there is definitely not consensus here, and keep in mind WP:VOTE as mentioned by @WMrapids. WP:NPOV concerns have not been addressed, sock puppet accounts have been used in this discussion, and some accounts have been uncivil, assuming rigidity and bias in both mine and @WMrapids logic and decision making.
 * I would like this discussion relisting, where our concerns - rooted in policy - are addressed. I would appreciate third party input as well, because few of the users who have stated that they are in favor of a switch back to self coup title have not addressed any of my concerns. I am happy to live with a title that includes self-coup, but not without further discussion. Carlp941 (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion has shown that the lack of consensus was for the name change from "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt" to "2022 Peruvian political crisis" in the first place. There is an almost 2 to 1 amount of users here against it, and it was only done by hastily closing the discussion before more than a handful of user could participate in a few days. It's on you to show a consensus for the name change to something else than "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt". There's been a lenghty and sourced discussion here, and it seem the previous change wasn't convincing to most users. --Aréat (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Aréat. A discussion cannot stay open forever. All parties involved have already put forward their views. It would be good for a third party to intervene and proceed to adopt a decision in consideration of what has already been discussed. Especially when the previous change that removed the original title "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt" should never have been made, because there was no consensus (it was a mere 4-2 decision) nor an adequate period of discussion like what has happened now.--Elelch (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that's become clear with the relist. I don't think there was a strong consensus here, either, so I'd like to at least give it until 7 days after the relist I made (which would be late 22 May) to see if any new opinions rise, but I doubt we'll see much given the lack of new comments since that relist. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  02:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets that voted one way or the other were blocked and their comments were striken down (and I believe they weren't included in the count above), meaning that this shouldn't affect the outcome. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Besides expressing my support to Aréat's statement, I have to point out that was blocked for sock puppetering after the discussion was closed, as I pointed out above. This means that the valid outcome of the decision was 3-2, instead of 4-2. This should be taken into account by the closing admin when considering the last discussion's decision, besides the hasty close. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again it must be pointed out that closing decisions are not the result of a vote. The result might be 1-2, and if that one rationale is strong and includes a policy-based rationale, but the opposers do not include policies and guidelines in their arguments, a page move would still take place. Decisions are based on the strength of the arguments, not on the strength of the numbers.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 19:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And there aren't any reasons to believe that the opposition statement have any less weight than the support ones (or viceversa, for that matter). The participation of a sock in the discussion must be noted, specially when it was not striken down before its closure, and it could have influenced the outcome of the discussion, giving an appearance of "consensus". --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is for a closer to decide. Participants like you and I always levitate toward our own rationales as if infallible. Sometimes consensus and closers disagree with us. We'll see how it goes.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 19:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the "consensus" that motivated the change of the original title (Peruvian self-coup attempt) for the current one was not such, especially when the discussion was closed in just a few days and there was a puppet account that in a result of only 4-2 skewed the decision, since it was actually 3-2. That in itself should warrant a return to the original title, even more so if many more users have participated in this new discussion and all have widely offered their points of view, making it clear that the majority is in favor of restoring the original title.--Elelch (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I can live with a decision based on this rationale, the previous name change was very rushed and self-coup was the consensus beforehand. I have many objections but I'm in the minority. I ask that we keep WP:VOTE in mind - votes don't determine consensus, they are merely a part of it. If the minority can live with the majority's decision, then that is consensus. And I can live with self-coup in the title for different reasons than everybody else. Carlp941 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting
Relisting, per suggestions above. — Relisting. WMrapids (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I relisted this a few days ago, though I guess there's no reason it couldn't be relisted again. RMCD bot isn't picking up on this, however, and you are involved (relisting discussions you have previously voted in is at best strongly discouraged, if not outright disallowed; you can vote after, but that's also discouraged). Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  09:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry I didn't see. I wanted to figure this move out, but I'll trust the process. Thanks again for your help! WMrapids (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment. A few procedural notes to hopefully clear some concerns. The relisting template must be substituted just after the nom's statement or just after a previous relisting so that the RMCD bot will notice it and officially relist the request at WP:RM. Placing the Relisting template anywhere else in the discussion will not be noticed by the bot. Relistings are allowed to stay open for seven days before either being relisted again or closure. Note that a discussion can be closed at any time following a relisting if consensus is believed to have emerged. As for !voting and then relisting, or relisting and then !voting, that's almost never done. If you do it, then you must be prepared to justify your action to any editor that challenges you. Any editor can request closure at WP:CR to attract the attention of frequent closers. An editor has asked that I refrain from closing this discussion. There are more than one reason why I must refrain. I am now involved, and even if I weren't involved, it is considered bad form to close a subsequent RM discussion after having closed a previous RM discussion on any given talk page.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 15:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment.Just wanted to add, I definitely support listing this as a self coup, and there never was a consesus for something else from the beginning. All reliable source also described it as an illegal coup, the president literally tried to dissolve the constitution. BastianMAT (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In your fourth bullet, did you mean to write "constitutional crisis" instead of "presidential crisis"? If not, your second and fourth bullets contradict each other. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 15:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ahecht Fixed my mistake >>> Extorc . talk  15:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

In your closing statement, you said you had no "prejudice" against a move proposal to "constitutional crisis". Would this be acceptable now, or after a certain period? I do not intend to create an endless discussion, but the proposal never really had its own chance alone.--WMrapids (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)