Talk:Coup d'état/Archive 2

Napoleon
Did Napoleon coin this phrase?

Before
Since someone mentioned Napoleon, I ask: are we able to make a list about coups before 1920? This kind of list shouldn't be so comprehensive as a XX-th century list, but is not unnecessary. What do you think about? José San Martin 23:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Lucio Gutiérrez
Sesel,

I've noticed that you removed Lucio Gutiérrez deposition from the list of coups d'état. I followed that incident in the media and to me it was characterized as a coup d'état. Have you listed this coup in another topic, like revolution or revolts? I know you must have your own reasons, but let me explain mine.
 * My country gave him political exile, he returned there and now he is arrested. Since he has been arrested without formal accusation other than that he is "attempting to subvert Ecuador's internal security" (it is written in the end of Gutiérrez article), it characterizes a not-so-constitutional situation.
 * Alfredo Palácio was deposed by a montion passed by the Congress. It does not make his deposition constitutional, since many coups were later confirmed by the parliament, including Brazilian 1964 coup. Citing wikipedia article, "a dubious claim: at that moment he was still in the Presidential Palace and was forced to leave later".
 * The Comando Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas (a military body equivalent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff) public disaproved Lucio Gutiérrez continuity in power. In normal situations, military bodies must not have political opinions. In a coup, however, they normally are against the deposed, president.
 * Finally, I present wikipedia definition of a coup: "the sudden overthrow of a government [of Gutiérrez], usually done by a smaller supposedly weaker body [the congress, even if they had some street supportance] that just replaces [by Alfredo Palacio] the top power figures [Gutiérrez]."

Regards,

José San Martin 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Iraq
I added to the list of coups the important info. that the 1963 and '68 coups in Iraq were done with CIA backing. I could not include the cite there but here they are: New York Times March 14, 2003 "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making", free archive at: http://readthese.blogspot.com/2003_12_15_readthese_archive.html "The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq", Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978; Peter and Marion Sluglett, "Iraq Since 1958" London, I.B. Taurus

Introduction doubts
The introduction summary is very unsatisfying, and requires big changes. In particular:
 * "A coup ... is the sudden overthrow of a government]] against the volonté générale formed by the majority of the citizenry." This is utterly wrong. While some coups have also overthrowed democracies (often weakened by a considerable loss of popularity) it is by far more common that authoritarian regimes, who often had arrived to power through a coup, are overthrowed. Also, it should be remembered that often at their start coups were often celebrated at start by the population, who cebrated the fall of a hated dictatator or, also, an unpopular democracy felt as corrupt or oligarchic.
 * "usually done by a smaller supposedly weaker body that just replaces the top power figures." While the last statement is generally correct, that on the "weaker body" is not; a coup may or may not create a weaker body, and are often at the start stronger than the overthrowed government; after all, it is very rare that a government that can count on the full support of the population is overthrowed by a coup.
 * "Any seizure of the state apparatus by extra-legal tactics may be considered a coup, according to Luttwak." This is not exactly what is said by Luttwak in the citation. Luttwak says: "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." From what I understand, Luttwak poses as a condition that a coup is such that it come from the state-apparatus; i.e., a government is overthrown by a part of itself. Aldux 14:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Turkey (1997)
Well what is happened in 1997 can hardly be told a military coup. Coalition government's second partner needed to be prime minister therefore existing prime minister resigned. President didn't give the responsibility of formin goverment to the smaller partner of coalition. So a new government has been formed. It is called an "post modern coup" because it was a reflection of a crisis after feb 28 1997 National Security Assembly (Which is formed by soldiers and government). In this meeting Fundementalist movements declared as the biggest threat for country and rulling party was an islamist party.

Section problems
The title of the section on 20th century coups is Coup d'état. This title should mean that only coups are listed, and only the important ones; instead it's full of failed and botched attempts. For this, unless good reasons are given, I'm going to remove failed coups from the list and keep those that were successful in overthrowing the government.--Aldux 11:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No no no, just change the title! Some failed coups, are VERY important in the history of the countries, like the 23-F coup in Spain. José San Martin 14:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Spliting
This article is already large and complete. How about spliting the sections (5) Coups and coup attempts in the twentieth century, (6) Coups and coup attempts in the twentieth century, (7) Recent coups and coup attempts and perhaps (8) Currently-serving leaders who came to power via coups into a new article named "List of coups and coups attemps" ?

By the way, I think the list of coups since 1910 is comprehensive, but there's a lack of coups before them. Spliting could help to complete the list. José San Martin 19:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Titlle spelling
Hello,

Actually, in French the right spelling of this is "coup d'État" uses a capital letter for "État" as it is referring to an organised political community.

I guess this should be corrected.

Peace -- Cln-id from the French-speaking Wikipédia -- 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this may be true in French, but I've never seen it capitalized that way in English text. —Bkell (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not capitalized that way in English. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 08:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have reverted the capitalization per Lowellian's reassurance, as it seems to be the correct way in English to leave it uncapitalized. Comrade4·2 23:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Coup/Putsch
Does in English coup and putsch mean exactly the same thing? In Serbia, when I was going to school, from history and sociology, we learned that those are two different tings. Coup d'etat (literally strike of the state) is conducted from the above (by the head of state or government, thus the name) while putsch (or overthrowing) was conduced from the above (lower levels of power; head of state can't overthrow himself) and we were given two examples from our history: coup conducted by the king Alexander I in 1929 and putsch by the military in 1941. PajaBG 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be right, but I don't know.Cameron Nedland 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

US 2000
Added content onto the earlier disc. below for context. chacun pour soi y&#39;all! 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan Coup? Wha?
The history section of the article lists Taiwan as a coup victim. When was this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * I lived in Taiwan and I never heard there is a coup and successfully done... 163.28.81.2 03:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chavez
last time I checked Chavez was democratically elected - he did serve jail prior to turning to democratic means for an attempted coup which is maybe where the confusion comes in --Gramscis cousin 07:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide coups map
Today, the user SpLoT has uploaded the following image to Wikimedia Commons and subsequently added it to this page.



I think that this kind of map is a very great idea and highly self-explanatory. However, it's quite POVed. Why USA, UK, Mozambique and Australia are marked in green? As far as I know, none of them are listed in List of coups d'état and coups attempts. They have been through revolutions, election frauds, civil wars, plots, president assassinations? Yes. Should these quasi-coups be mentioned as coups? Well, a bit too POV and already discussed by Wikipedian community, since they are not listed in Wikipedia as coups.

SpLoT, could you to redraw your map and exclude the countries not properly listed? José San Martin 13:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's how I did this map. First, I looked at the list, and then I added other countries with coups from all the history pages of the individual countries. I will try to redraw the map with the success/failure factor.


 * US: Business Plot
 * UK: Gunpowder Plot
 * Mozambique: History of Mozambique
 * Australia: Rum Rebellion


 * For the Australia one, I could just colour New South Wales (Similar to the colouring of Abu Dhabi and Yanaon). So after these improvements, would it still be POV? -  SpLoT  / (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made the relevant changes, awaiting your responses. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider the Rum Rebellion modern (Australia wasn't even a nation then), and the Gunpowder Plot is definitely NOT modern - it happened in 1605. And I seriously question including a "coup" which never got beyond the talking stages in the case of the US. This map should be fixed or removed ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.28.43 (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2006


 * Disagree. If you want to remove the map, please get concensus. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SpLoT, I noticed you removed the map...I hope this is due to the fact you're fixing it and not getting rid of it entirely. Despite some problems, I think it still had overall worth. Perhaps re-title it (Distribution of notable coup attempts 1600-present) or just fix some problems and make it recent historical (say 1900-present). Also, if you include a link to the list of coups page in the caption I think it would help people understand your methodology...and that you're not trying to include POV claims or advance a political agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.28.43 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2006


 * I did not remove it, I changed it to include 2 versions (one with the english legend and caption on en.wiki, and one internationalized one without on commons). To add 'notable' would be extremely subjective, even more than it is now with the 'modern'. I just cannot include all former Roman Empire territory as 'successful coup', unless you do want that. 1605 would be considered Early Modern, and not Medieval. If anyone removes it, I will then direct them to this discussion, or put a note on the page itself with . -  SpLoT  / (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"I just cannot include all former Roman Empire territory as 'successful coup', unless you do want that." ??? I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. And yes, 1605 is considered "Early Modern," which is not to be confused with the "Modern era"...i.e., what is denoted by your use of "modern." And there is a difference between being subjective and being POV. It's up to the community to figure out where that is, but I don't think anyone would throw a fit at the use of the word 'notable.' Although, I'm sure you could find a better title with a little bit of thought...that was just a quick suggestion of mine.


 * I think if you want a better title, please suggest one. It's only practical that we start from the Rum Rebellion and Gunpowder Plot, since there's a huge break in between with no coups. The Roman Empire had a successful coup, and that would be too long ago. And please sign your posts; I'm tired of tagging . -  SpLoT  / (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I have no problem with including The Gunpowder Plot in 1605...just don't call it modern. It's not. I suggested several titles, so I'm done with that. And if you really think there were no coups between 1605 and 1808 (or between 476 and 1605), you are sadly mistaken. Not to mention that including coups from that era (1600s) opens a whole can of worms as the political geography was completely different. Have fun highlighting The Ottoman Empire on your map. Signed, Unsigned.

The following countries are missing on the map: —Sesel 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Angola (attempt in 1977)
 * Azerbaijan (1993)
 * Bophuthatswana (attempt in 1988)
 * Bulgaria (1934, 1944)
 * Ciskei (1990)
 * Dominica (attempt in 1981)
 * Lebanon (attempt in 1961/1962)
 * Rwanda (1973)
 * Sharjah (attempt in 1972)
 * Solomon Islands (2000)
 * Transkei (1987)
 * Tunisia (1987)
 * Vanuatu (attempt in 1996)
 * Venda (1990)
 * Zanzibar (coup/revolution in 1964)


 * I've restored you map in both pages. Great work! Sorry for if bothered, ok? José San Martin 23:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Regarding the list above: Thank you for all your inputs, Sesel and José San Martin. I will incorporate all the newly found coups into the map soon. Meanwhile, try to add the info on the coups which I have not found any evidence for. Thanks again. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Angola: no evidence
 * Azerbaijan: attempt 1995 - done.
 * Bophuthatswana: attempt 1988, 90 - done.
 * Bulgaria: no evidence
 * Ciskei: coup 1990 - done.
 * Dominica: attempt 1981 - done.
 * Lebanon: no evidence
 * Rwanda: coup 1973 - done.
 * Sharjah: no evidence
 * Solomon Islands: coup 2000 - done.
 * Transkei: coup 1987 - done.
 * Tunisia: coup 1987 - done.
 * Vanuatu: attempt 1996 - done.
 * Venda: coup 1990 - done.
 * Zanzibar: coup 1964 - done.


 * Relevant changes made. Now awaiting evidence for Angola, Azerbaijan (coup), Bulgaria, Lebanon and Sharjah. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, the map is complete, we shall see how the map is. Hope this map is as accurate as possible. --Ter e nce Ong (C 12:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are cites for the rest:


 * Angola: Nito Alves
 * Bulgaria:
 * Lebanon: (December 31, 1961-January 1962): Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Collier's Year Book (1962: Lebanon)
 * Sharjah: —Sesel 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why aren't Nicaragua and Peru both among the successful coup contries? And isn't the gunpowder plot a bit too old? Its centuries from all the other examples presented.--Aldux 22:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gunpower plot is not 'centuries from all the other examples'; it is modern enough to be included. The Roman Empire would be too old, but the Gunpowder plot is certainly not medieval. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For Peru, I have coloured it dark green now. For Nicaragua, please give some evidence of attempted or successful coups. Thanks. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, successful in Costarica 1870, 1876, 1914 ; successful in Nicaragua in 1925 ; Malawi unsuccessful coup plots in 1993 and 2001., Tanzania unsuccessful coup plots in 1969, 1982, Jordan, failed coup, 1957 .--Aldux 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a distinction should be made between coup attempts and coup "plots." —Sesel 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid somebody will have to explain the distinction, becouse I don't know it. If it's what I believe, many of those countries coloured in light green did not reach operative phase (USA, GB, Italy and others that were blocked before starting the action).--Aldux 00:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added the 'coup plot' category, and used a clearer map. -  SpL o T  (*T* C+u+g+v) 15:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would just like to suggest a better color scheme, with more contrast as I can tell the difference between attempts and plots (perhaps it's just my eyes). Why not use yellow for plots, orange for attempts and red for coups, or else, yellow for plots, green for attempts and blue for coups? 201.59.1.129 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Image talk:EN Worldwide coups d'état.PNG: I realize the points raised by Ultramarine are significant and relevant to the map and the entire article. However, I disagree that this is a violation of WP:NOR, but concede that the map can bring in complex WP:V issues due to the sheer number of sources used, which inevitably causes slight to moderate WP:BIAS in the map since multiple sources have differing definitions of a coup. Until a single WP:RS which summarizes worldwide coups is found, I recognise the fact that the information presented in the map is impossible to conclusively verify en masse, and retract all usage of the map on all mainspace articles. Thanks for all your support and criticism; I've certainly brushed up on my policy knowledge during this discussion. -  SpL o T  // 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing Chile (Salvador Allende and Pinochet), and Colombia (1958). Plz add them to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.194.5 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Most recent coup d'etat
This article says Thailand was most recent coup d'etat. Fiji December 5 2006 is more recent.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.180.124.62 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Nature of Coup on Local Government
I'm a little confused by the article. It says that a Coup generally replaces just the major offices. But, I thought that if a Coup were to happen, the entire government would fall, including at the local level by default; and the local level can only keep its governmental posts if it's granted by the incoming government. Is that correct? The way I understood it is that a coup would discard the entire national constitution; the local charters and constitutions are all based on the national one; ergo if the national constitution gets struck down by a coup d'etat, then all the depending lower level charters are in effect destroyed as well.

In short, from what I understand, local level officials lose their offices by default, but they can keep their offices only through the concession and mercy of the incoming government. Am I off-mark?J.J. Bustamante 12:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Current leaders list
On the part of the article that lists the current world leaders who gained their seats by coup, could Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo be considered as one of them? While it's true that in her current term, she won through an election in 2004, but that wasn't the same case with her term beginning in 2001 when President Estrada was thrown out. Her first term was pretty much a de facto coup, and she's still in power.J.J. Bustamante 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A definition and etymology
The American Heritage Dictionary has a definition of coup d’état “as the sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in position of authority.” This definition does not include two very important features of all coups d’état, the fact that they are always unconstitutional, and very often carried on violently. So I would prefer a definition including those features. It could read as follows: “the sudden unconstitutional and forcible overthrow of a legitimate government by usually a small group of persons currently or previously in positions of authority.”

By extension an analogous expression: “boardroom coup” is currently used to denote the unfriendly takeover of a corporation by seizing the control of the board of directors.

This kind of political action is not new. Chinese politics was plagued by it well before our own era. Darius became the Persian king by means of a coup d’état. It is famous the complot to overthrow Julius Caesar in which the only possible way to remove him from office was by killing him. What is relatively new is the expression to refer to it. According to the Oxford Dictionary, in 1646 Howell first used coup d’état in France in his book Lewis XIII, Life of Richelieu. In England, Thompson first used it in 1811 by commenting about the coup d’état staged in 1799 by Napoleon Bonaparte to overthrow the Revolutionary Directory composed of members of the civil society and became Consul.

This is a very interesting example of a political action that does not have an English word to refer to it and because of it, English speaking writers have borrowed either “Coup d’état,” the French expression or the German word, “Putsch.”

According to Prof. Thomas Childers of the University of Pennsylvania the lack of a word to denote a sudden unconstitutional change of government derives from the political institutions from England. Although France’s and Germany’s history are liberally colored by this type of political events, the history of England is not. In England, the last coup d’état was the 1688 Glorious Revolution in which William of Orange, together with a group of parliamentarians, overthrew James II, the last Roman Catholic English ruler and facilitated the establishing of a modern parliamentary democracy. That happened more than three hundred years ago, it seems, that in England, this is an action that occurs very rarely and for which there has not been the need to create a word.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.243.4.157 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 March 2007

Veto Coups
"Examples include Chile in 1973 and Argentina in 1976. An abortive and botched veto coup occurred in Venezuela in 2002." This is at least partially incorrect. In Chile, the popularly elected Chamber of Deputies called upon the military to depose the emerging brutal Marxist Allende dictatorship. The Army was acting in step with the legislative and judicial branches against the unconstitutional usurpations of the executive branch. This was not a veto coup. I don't think it fits any of the three Huntington coup types. It has similarities to a guardian coup, but the central aim was to defend the Chilean Constitution, not "to improve public order, efficiency, or to end corruption." - MSTCrow 22:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Salvator Allende was a democratically elected president who got removed by a military coup. After that, a fascist government led by Augusto Pinochet took over the country, killing and torturing tens of thousands. This is a perfect example of a veto coup. lomis 23:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Coup in the United States
I am curious why this coup is not mentioned on this page or on the big list of coups. When the delegates met in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention of 1787, they were instructed by Congress to revise the Articles of Confederation. However, there were so many revisions necessary that they ended up throwing out the AoC and starting a brand new Constitution. This was a peaceful overthrow of the government, thus constituting a coup d'état. I would just add the US to the list of coups, but I'm almost positive it would be removed by someone who doesn't know the whole story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangwire (talk • contribs) 03:26, 10 May 2007


 * This simply was not a coup, as the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was done via the normal political process. 64.72.137.241 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And NOT with the threat of violence. Schoop (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's quite a bit of debate on whether the Constitutional Convention was, umm, legal or not according to the government at the time (Articles). I've heard it was considered treasonous by many. According to this very article:
 * A coup d’état is the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a (typically small) part of the state establishment – usually the military – to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.
 * The so-called US coup wasn't a military one, it was a peaceful, bloodless transfer of power from one civil government with another, and if it goes against the Articles of Confederation (which many say it did), then it fits this article's description. No violence is necessary or implied for a coup to exist.--Tim Thomason 03:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Capital E
Since the article itself states that the 'E' in the word coup d'État should be capitalized in this usage, and since it wasn't, I capitalized it througout, except for the title, which I could not change. I recommend that someone fix the title to reflect the proper spelling of the word.

In french, "État" is always written with a capital "É" (with accent, for PC: +144) "état" = state (for non legal use: medical purpose, etc.) "État" = State (for legal use: "un État souverain" = A sovereign State) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.164.100.30 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, this issue was recently considered in the "Requested move" section, and the well established overall position was that in English it is with lowercase "é". Alchaemist (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Englishlessness
Removed from the etymology section:
 * Unusually, this is a political action that does not have an English equivalent. English speaking writers typically borrow either “Coup d'État,” the French expression, or the German word, “Putsch.”

Is it really unusual? What's the English equivalent for avant-garde or agent provocateur or bon appétit or entepreneur or faux pas or voilà or... --Alivemajor 03:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Often through illegal means"
Right now, the first paragraph of the article says that coups happen often through illegal means. Isn't that sort of an understatement? Coups are always illegal, in that they happen outside of the recognised constitution in place at the time. I can't think of any scenario where a coup would be "legal." If it were legal, it would be like an election or other constitutional transfer of power.J.J. Bustamante 05:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering
Would the following view help anything: the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution: in other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise. InsectIntelligence (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * compassion -> human values -> health,
 * justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces -> health of practises in this respect,
 * carrying responsibility of the things that one affects -> guidability,
 * sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things are -> guidability,
 * holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role in the world;