Talk:Coup d'état/Archive 1

Venezuela
''One form of military intervention which some regard as a coup d'etat is the use of the threat of military force to remove a particularly unpopular leader. This has occurred...in Venuzeula in 2002''

Removed the bit about Venezuela. It's far from obvious that the 2002 Venezuela coup was "to remove a particularly unpopular leader". Chavez was restored to power based largely on spontaneous popular uprisings, of the sort that don't usually occur for "particularly unpopular leader"s.

-- I already did. I changed it to speak of the even larger protests by his supporters who helped put him back in office. A. It has NEVER been proven that he was corrupt and B. he has been popularly elected 3 times with overwhelming majorities which have been found to be fair by foreign observers.

Not coups
I don't think much of Bush and his election and I don't think much of the Hayes-Tilden affair in 1876 but neither one was a coup d'etat. It is tendentious and seriously detracts from understanding what a coup d'etat is to clutter this article up up this way. The JFK election in 1960 had its fishy elements too, but it wasn't a coup d'etat either. Ortolan88 18:17 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

Move with accent
Shouldn't this page move to "Coup d'état" (accent on the e) ? When this question is settled, we can update the many links that point to Coup. --FvdP 21:58 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)


 * Because I'm a sucker for diacritics and these straight-from-French borrowings tend to keep them more often than more nativized words, I went ahead and moved it. Personally, I see little reason for Coup not to just redirect here. --Brion 22:04 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)


 * OK. I redirected all links to coup to coup d'état. I did not touch the links to coup d'etat yet apart the one from coup (I'm tired, time to stop), but that's less urgent (redirection will do for now). FvdP 23:04 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)


 * I see little reason for Coup not to just redirect here: I'm not sure because
 * there are other meanings to "Coup" (contract bridge, The Coup), that make a redirect to "coup d'état" less desirable
 * we could move back the article from "coup d'état" to "coup", but then we would face the possibility that someone will want to move it back to "coup d'é/etat" like JHK did.
 * OTOH, I sympathetize with all non-french-speaking people who now have to make links to coup d'état. Copy-paste may help them. And we may monitor coup for incoming links.
 * FvdP 20:33 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)


 * Don't you have the "Alt Gr" ket to the right of your space bar? -- Sam


 * I don't need "Alt Gr" to type "é"... and other people may be unable to type "é" even though they have "Alt Gr" ! What they should try under Windows is: Alt 0233 for é and Alt 0201 for É (hold the Alt key down until you have pressed the last digit). --FvdP

Facts
Hello-- i would like to fight for the facts. in re:==United States 2000== I'll be happy to bring out the proof necessary to confirm this evaluation. If Americans can be somehow exceptional enough to believe that political rules, history and experience, do NOT apply to this current situation, then they should get a job with Scott McClellan and the rest of the 'unreality-based' community in SW DC as they continue to spend half the budget on war/development/oil/security. The one request I make is that there be an actual un-involved party making any decision regarding these minor changes. So no American I suppose, but I refuse to argue with someone whose ability to adhere to the logic of dialectic is impaired.chacun pour soi y&#39;all! 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed passage after 24-hour warning. Here it is if anyone wants to fight for it. Whether this is to be considered a coup is up to debate. There may have been illegalities in the voting process, in which case it could be.
 * 2000: Potential non-military coup in United States of America. See (controversial election)

If it is "up to debate", "could be", "to be considered", it belongs on the talk page, not the article. For my money, it is just plain dirty politics and nothing like a coup. If we had had a coup, we'd know it. Ortolan88

To the contrary: the most successful coups, and the only kind that would succeed (have succeeded) in the US, are invisible coups, secret coups, that involve the communications media to an extent that creates the illusion that no coup has occurred. Perhaps this is only possible in the modern era of media-addicted populace and mega-corporate-media-merger empire. 70.107.19.94 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

''In conjunction with the reference to Luttwak's work, it seems that more detail about non-violent coups is indeed in order. Ideas like "If we had a coup, we'd know it" are, in fact, part of what can make a non-violent coup successful. Illegally taking power often depends on convincing enough of the populace that nothing untoward happened.''

Also, we might mention the views of those who feel that the US Supreme court prevented a coup d'etat by the Democratic Party. By putting to an end the strategy of endlessly recounting votes until they got the Democratic Party got result they wanted, the US Supreme Court saved democracy and defended the Constitution. Well, this is one POV. If we're going to include the POV that the Bush victory was a coup d'etat, we should alse include the POV that the attempt to declare a Gore victory was a coup attempt.

Really, though, the 2000 US presidential election was compared to a coup d'etat by those who didn't like the results. Gore conceded, remember? He didn't have to. --Ed Poor


 * Well, Gore conceded, but that's because he's a loser (said the still angry Democrat). I believe that Gore got everything he deserved, which was nothing, but that he saved the republic, constitution, etc., by conceding while the supreme court poisoned the well with a tendentious ill-considered, highly political opinion that will surely come back to haunt the country.  But it wasn't a coup d'etat.  Ortolan88 00:08 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * It's been described as a coup by British journalists (and also by Gore Vidal). We primitive non-American's dont have CNN, we're still on town criers, but from my personal POV it went like this: one day they were still counting the votes, the next day Bush & his team had moved into the White House and announcing that they had won. Sounded like a coup to me. -- Tarquin 17:31 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

The U.S. election of 2000 was a coup d'etat. There was massive election fraud before election day. The Florida Secretary of State, who has a constitutional obligation to be neutral, served as the head of the Bush campaign in Florida, and arranged for a private corporation to illegally remove about 50,000 voters, mostly poor black Democrats, from the roles on the theory that their names were similar to those of convicted felons. No other state has used private corporations for the purposes of removing voters from the rolls. There was massive election fraud on election day, including jamming the telephone lines. There was massive fraud after election day, including military ballots submitted after the polls closed. Finally, many ballots were not counted even once, and a hand recount of the entire state of Florida puts Gore over the top. Gore won the election. Bush stole it. It was a coup d'etat. This should be in the Wikipedia article. All of this is in the factual record and is beyond honest debate. Anomalocaris 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The US Supreme Court had NO authority or Constitutional right to interfear in a Local Election. If thats not a coup, then what is it? MagnumSerpentine9-17-06

Facts and propaganda

 * i am trying to do this correctly. i have edited for readability and facts. you can argue party lines all you want but facts is facts and propaganda wears more guises than madonna ...
 * chacun pour soi y&#39;all! 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)]]

"It is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system. " IMHO a coup d'état can also be done to radically changes the political system.


 * I guess the "larger groups" is what makes the difference. And the fact that a revolution changes the system almost by definition, while a coup d'etat doesn't necessarily change it. (But indeed can change it, e.g. democratical systems overthrown by the military.) -FvdP


 * I think revolutions are perceived as something that is the will of the populace -- a coup is often engineered by a small minority. There could also be an element of freedom fighter / terrorist in this -- Tarquin 16:16 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking a revolution is a movement aimed "to radically changes the political system." Most of the revolutions involve people's mobilization but in theory this isn't necessary.
 * Ericd


 * And a coup d'état can also aim at changing the system. So there is overlap between the two concepts ? FvdP


 * (pondering...) If a revolution "radically changes the political system", then isa coup d'etat simply a sudden (possibly aggressive) change of leadership? -- Tarquin 17:17 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * I believe a coup d'état involve some forme of conspiracy and generally the use of force, or at least the threat to use it. (Napoleon made a coup d'état without really using force). A lot people said than Thomas Sankara called revolution a coup d'état he answered than revolution was referring his policy and not the way he became president. During last presidential capaign in France the Troskyist claimed they wanted to achieve a revolutionby democratic suffrage.
 * Ericd


 * (pondering, too...) But a revolution too can involve conspiracy and force. And a coup d'état can change the system (e.g. Chile 1973.) I vote for the overlap: concepts are fuzzy and there's no wonder no one can capture the full reality. Perhaps a coup d'état is about "how it happens": anything that is not legal according to the rules of the previous system; and happens suddenly; and is promoted by a few, along to or in place of (say) popular uprisings. A revolution is about "what happens afterwards (or is planned to happen afterwards)": the system change. 194.78.208.93


 * Is "putsch" a usual word in english ?
 * Ericd


 * Putsch is used almost exclusively in reference to the Hitler attempts against Weimar. Ortolan88


 * My Collins dicitonary says "a sudden violent or illegal seizure of government" for coup d'état -- Tarquin 17:37 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm absolutely certain that the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Revolution is mainly a policy while a coup d'état is a mean to acccess to the power.
 * The cultural revolution was led by Mao who alrerady had the power.
 * Ericd


 * I think it is needlessly confusing to keep the so-called "revolutions" out of the list of coups. If a bunch of gun-brandishing folks storm into the president's palace and forcibly seize control, then that is a coup. The ideological motivations for doing so are secondary.
 * Besides, it seems almost every coup uses revolutionary language to justify its occurance. Pinochet's coup is sometimes called the "Chillean Revolution" as he justified it as a revolution against Communism. Likewise, Castro also claimed to have ambitious revolutionary goals backing his coup, but when they look back on history years from now I am sure the "Cuban revolution" will be seen as little more than a switch from one style of dictator to another.
 * In a way "revolution" is a sort of loaded term. It implies that the coup was somehow "above" other violent seizures of power, because they were doing it in the spirit of the people / Marx / God / etc etc. user:J.J.


 * If we are discussing about the two sense of the world revolution :
 * - a revolution can be a policy aimed to radically change the system,
 * - a revolution is a a seizure of power with popular support.
 * The Cuban revolution is a revolution because :
 * - it had popular support,
 * - it radically changed the political system.
 * The fact that Castro failed (or IMO never tried) to bring democracy in Cuba is an other problem.
 * When you call the Cuban revolution a coup it's obviously ideological. Even the French Revolution could be viewed as "a bunch of gun-brandishing folks storming into the King's palace"
 * Many revolutions involve one or several Coups, and they were at list 3 Coups during the French revolution.
 * About Castro we can write he attempted (and failed) a Coup before retreating into the Sierra Maestra but not that the whole Cuban revolution was a simple coup.
 * Ericd 10:45 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Something in that direction. A coup d'état is _momentous_ - a sudden change of régime. A coup d'état is never legal, but might be viewed as legitime. A revolution is a process, which might be totally legalistic (for instance when following elections, confirmed in a plebiscite, etc), or might be more or less like a civil war until the revolutionary régime has seized the power of the state. -- Johan Magnus 03:42, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Last election not a coup
You can't call the last election a coup unless you call the 1960 election a coup and the 1876 election as well. Dirty politics in all three cases. Sorry, I don't like him either, but he had the guts to face down Gore and he won. The enfeeblement of the Democrats is the real story of the 2000 election and the current Bush administration, not a coup. Ortolan88 17:52 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't want to dicuss is the election was legal or not. But an electoral fraud has never been considered as a coup d'état.
 * Ericd


 * Concerning the above discussion: haven't you guys ever heard of "connotation vs. denotation" and "literal vs. metaphorical?" A literal definition of a word is never based on all examples of usage; usage may reflect the literal definition, denotations, or metaphorical extension. Slrubenstein


 * Hmmm... Hitler was elected isn'it ? Ericd 22:19 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Why did you ask this? I crtl+F'ed and found no Hitlers, Germanys, and Nazis in the article. Had it been removed? If so, the remover should've left a note here. --Menchi 00:34 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I didn't remember myself but on April 3 there was a sentence sugestint that Hitler accessed to the the power by a coup.

Ericd 08:27 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Compare the Reichtag's fire and the subsequent transgressions of the Weimar Constitutioni. The result of the election was changed by imprisonments. Could well be called a coup, as also the abolishment of the precidency after Hindenburg's death. -- Johan Magnus

It's obvious that Hitler made several violations of the constitution after accessing to the power. But this not a typical coup in the same way we can discuss for ages if Charles de Gaulle made a coup in 1958 (and maybe also in 1962). Ericd 10:29, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Coup d' etat is not the way to change the government!!!"

Cuba
In a de jure sense, I believe Cuba was a coup. Batista was chased out of office and into exile by guerrillas. Yes, it was a revolution, but it was also a coup IMO. --Sesel 02:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spain / Czechoslovakia
Could the events that led to Francisco Franco establishing a dictotorship in Spain in the 1930s be considered a coup d'etat? He assumed control of the country, yes, but through the civil war, not a coup.

- Franco's seizure of Spain was not really a coup. He formed an alliance of conservative military officers, Spain's colonial Africa corps, and a variety of rightwing and anti-Communist forces: the Fascist party (the Falange), the Carlists, Associations of Monarchists or Royalists, and ultra conservative members of the clergy who were terrified of Anarchist and Communist attacks. Together, with the help of German and Italian soldiers and around 800 Fascist Irish volunteers and roughly 200 Czarist Russian exiles; they launched a civil war to oust the elected Popular Front government, which went on for four years.

The Loyalist or Republican side (the government) maintained the loyalty of the entire Navy, most of Spain's tiny air force, and the police. They of course also had the backing of almost every trade union across the country, all leftwing and liberal groups and thousands of volunteers from Canada, the U.S., Britain, France, Ireland, and even exiles from Fascist Italy. It was really more of a civil war, a revolution? Possibly you could call it that. But basically it was you're run of the mill civil war.

Also, the events in Czechoslovakia 1948, could they really be considered a coup by the communists? The non-communist parties resigned but the communists and the social democrats had a majority of one in parliament so they stayed in power. Why is that on the list of coups in history? User:Thuresson 192.121.232.252 11:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Since Franco's seizure of Spain is listed as a coup shouldn't King Juan Carlos I be listed as one of the currently serving leaders who came to power via a coup? After all he was designated King according to the law of succession promulgated by Franco.


 * Franco did assumed parts Spain through a coup. THEN, a civil war began. José San Martin 13:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Suriname
There was a succesfull coup in 1980 led by Desi Bouterse. I have never heard of a coup in 1986. Andries 21:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cuba
What fidel did on 1959 was a revolution not a coup, following your stated definition


 * I agree totally. If no one states against, I'm deleting Fidel from this list. Dictator or not, he came to power in a revolution with a very large basis that changed deeply the Cuban National State. Not a Coup, by this article's definition. José San Martin July 9, 2005 15:26 (UTC)

I agree, most Cubans at the time felt that he would bring them democracy. And as a result his 26th of July Movement had hundreds of thousands of open supporters nationwide, possibly millions of silent supporters. Batista did come to power in a coup, two coups actually. Although in 1933 most of the Cuban people did hate General Machado, the so called "Sergeant's Revolution" which Batista led had virtually no mass support and was almost kept a complete secret from the public until it was a success.

Peru
President Alberto Fujimori was not overtrown on a Coup. He faced massive protest led by then Opossition lider Alejandro Toledo, but at eny moment he was use force to dissolve those protests. Fujimori resigned to the presidency of Peru on November 16, 2001. So I think that he should be disregard of the list (expect for the self-coup) Messhermit 17:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thacher a coup?
Was the 1990 removal of Mrs Thacher a coup ?

Although acheived through the democratic rules of the Conservative Party, and the constitution, it seams to forfill the stated deffinition "is the sudden overthrow of a government, usually done by a small group that just replaces the top power figures" In that the Prime Minister was plotted against by her ministers, and replaced by one of them.

Discuss...., 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it probably was. --Captdoc 22:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By this standard George W Bush should be on the list of currently serving leaders who came to power by coup as he came to power as a result of what amounted to a judicial coup.--Gramscis cousin 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It was defintely not, because laws and constitution were not broken. That's a key element that a coup has to fulfill. Alchaemist (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Iran
Isn't the Iranian Revolution considered a Coup? The Shah was overthrown and his government ousted. Just wondering.

By the definition of coup, "A coup d'état (...) is the sudden overthrow of a government, usually done by a small group that just replaces the top power figures. It is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system.", the revolution is not a coup, but in 1953 the American CIA and the British MI6 overthrew the government and placed the Shah as ruler, the coup goes under the name of Operation Ajax.

Nepal
Was the king seizing power in Nepal really a coup? I'm not 100% sure but I believe he had the constitutional authority to dissolve parliment, in which case it would not be a true coup.

Cyprus
I added the coup in Cyprus in 1974 to this list - seems pretty key to me and I can't imagine anybody will argue for its removal, but thought I'd better leave a note here to flag it up... Peeper 08:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Coups and coup attempts in fiction?
I removed the "Coups and coup attempts in fiction" section, which in its entirety contained:


 * Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, the decision of Windu and the other Jedi Council members to take matters into their own hands and arrest Palpatine themselves, then rule the Republic until the Senate can re-establish democracy

I mean, seriously... What next? Adding "fictional murders" to murder? It's also quite notable that only the latest Star Wars movie is listed in this ill-conceived beginning of a trivia list, which sticks out like a sore thumb. There have to be an absurd number of fictional coups, from political thrillers to historical novels, none of them adding the least bit of understanding to the topic. If anyone thinks this has potential, I encourage you to start list of fictional coups and coup attempts, but it definitely doesn't mix with this article. 82.92.119.11 22:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Article List of fictional revolutions and coups createdJosé San Martin.

Kennedy Coup
Removed from the article. Approaches Patent nonsense, and short of that fails the test of the 2002 coup attempt/revolt in Ivory Coast.


 * 1963: Coup against John F. Kennedy alleged in United States (See Kennedy assassination theories).

-Ben 19:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, Ben. Patent nonsense obviously doesn't apply; check the link. It's certainly well-established that a majority of U.S. citizens believe that Kennedy was killed by conspiracy. If that is so, then the Kennedy Assassination was the greatest coup d'etat of the century. Granted, it is an ongoing controversy, but you at least need to include it as an alleged coup. Certainly as strong a case as the Business Plot mentioned.


 * It doesn't qualify as a coup.... Ericd 03:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not? In order for the Kennedy Assassination not to count as a coup, or at least an alleged coup, the Oswald version would have to be established fact, which is far from the case. Polls suggest that 60-80% of Americans believe this was an intelligence coup.


 * Why are these the only two possibilities? I've heard speculation that Kennedy was killed by organized crime figures as payback for his brother's role in prosecuting them.  I'm not qualified to judge the plausibility of that story, but it seems as live a hypothesis as the theories of intelligence conspiracy.  If there was a conspiracy but it wasn't connected to Johnson or to anyone who gained governmental power as a result of it, then it's just an assassination conspiracy, not a coup. --Matt McIrvin 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the major Kennedy assassination theories, probably the most widespread, holds that the assassination was a coup d'etat by the military-industrial complex, including the FBI and the CIA, that installed Johnson in power. Sure, it's not the only theory, but it's the most widespread. So the short answer is that the most widely researched assassination theory is also a theory of an alleged coup d'etat.

Lack of references
The governments of France and Britain have engineered coups as well. Shouldn't this be "are accused to have engineered", or shouldn't there be precise references? One may for instance cite Bob Denard's early dealings in Comoros, but are there proofs he was backed by France? David.Monniaux 09:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Castro
I've added him to the list of current servers who came to power via a coup; anyone know how we could have forgotten the longest-serving coup-empowered leader in the world? (I'm just being overly critical; you don't necessarily have to respond.) Deltabeignet 03:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Noted. If this is flippant, I apologise: it's not hard to forget the man, but never what he did or why. :) E Pluribus Anthony 03:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He came to power through a coup or a revolution? I rather think it was a revolution. What do you think? José San Martin 22:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Without doubt, that was a revolution, therefore it should be deleted. (can you say that 90% of the population is a small or minority group?? - and at that time it _was_ 90% at least). M Becks 22:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed Fidel Castro from the list of current servers who came to power via a coup. As stated at the start of the article, a coup "is the sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means by a part of the state establishment, that mostly replaces just the top power figures." Castros rise to power does not qualify for a coup in this definition. First of all he came to power through a civil war lasting for about 3 years. Thats no sudden overthrow of government. Also, Fidel Castro was not a part of the state establishment, but the head of a rebel army.


 * Not about Fidel Castro, but I think you can't say its either a coup or a revolution. A coup can be the start of a revolution (as in Libya with Ghadaffi), as well as the outcome of a victory for a rebel force or popular revolt not necessarily turns into a revolution. (What has really changed with the so called "revolution" in Ukraine? Today the President was the leader of the "revolution", while the serving prime minister was the opponent of the "revolution". There does not seem to be enough political change to call it a revolution.) A revolution says something about the difference in politics between the old and new regime. It does not say anything about how the new regime came to power. [Zikan]

Agreeing with Zikan I am removing Castro. By the definition in the first line of the article "sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means by a part of the state establishment " Castro coming to power was a revolution not a coup as he was not by any means "part of the state establishment" Accuracy and Consistency suggests he should be in alist of leaders who came to power by violent means instead. --Gramscis cousin 07:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

October Revolution
I added the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917 to the list. It doesn't really fit the definition of revolution, it fits a coup better. For instance: It wasn't led by a majority of the populace but by a small group under Lenin. It did implement alot of changes, but it became apparent that the spirit of revolution was short lived and that in fact the Communist Party had just replaced the Bourgoise as the top dogs. It's fairly blurry between whether it's a revolution or a coup but it fits the definition of coup well enough so I thought I'd add it. --GinAndTonic 19:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And I REMOVED it from the list. Why? As per the article's definition of the coup, it replaces only the top leaders, not the whole political and socioeconomic system.

http://www.marxist.com/russian-revolution-colour-documentary.htm

In the article above (and many other leftist articles), the Bolsheviks derived their revolutionary legitimacy through the small-s soviets:

"The delegates, who were elected at every unit of labour to the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies and to the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russian Soviets, were subject to immediate recall and no deputy received more than the wage of a skilled worker."

"So while the Bolsheviks got only 23.9 per cent in the Constituent Assembly, the working class voted for the Bolsheviks in the soviets, giving them 51 per cent of the votes. The right SRs, the representatives of the peasantry raised the slogan: ‘All power to the Constituent Assembly’. The Bolsheviks, the vanguard and representative of the workers, raised the slogan: ‘All power to the soviets’."

--Darth Sidious 15:04 PST, 11 November 2005

Going by the Wikipedian definition: Sudden overthrow: Yes. Done by a small group that replaces the top figures of power: Lenin and Leninism supports control of a small elite to "vanguard communism" which places the party as the head of state and so replaced the Czar. Different from a revolution which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system: The fact that they didn't have a majority in the assembly and only slightly above half in the soviets points towards that the group itself wasn't large, coupled with the ensuing civil war which lasted for three years, and Leninism being founded on the basis of a small elite. It seemed to radically changed the political system, but in retrospect the Communist Party wasn't all that different or any less totalitarian than the Czar was. It at the very least deserves a mention and perhaps could use an asterics for disputed next to it.--GinAndTonic 05:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it called October Revolution or October Coup? We're not here to rewrite the History. José San Martin 19:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Going by that logic shouldn't the 1974: Military coup in Portugal (Carnation Revolution) be removed?


 * The october revolution was both a coup and a revolution. It was both a sudden change of government and a radical change of policies (however, the october revolution did not come from within the state establishment, as is a criteria for the definition of coup in this article). By revolution you do not say anything about rise to power. By revolution you talk about the degree of political change.