Talk:Coup d'état/Archive 3

Use of "Coup" in a Sentence
Whilst using "coup" (just coup) in a sentence, would you say that it belongs to the person, the government, or the country involved. For Example:
 * Bill overthrows Bob, King of Happyland.

Which sentence(s) are correct?
 * 1) The Coup of Bill
 * 2) The Coup of King Bob
 * 3) The Coup of Happyland
 * 4) Bill's Coup
 * 5) King Bob's Coup
 * 6) Happyland's Coup

Please reply Mhavril39 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A coup d'état occurring in other organizations
This article doesn't cover a coup occurring in organizational groups beyond national government. There is usually the concept of it happening in a business, church or similar organization. SimonMackay (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed line
I removed a line:

Coup d'état comes from the French word to overthrow without a civil war, or any war for that matter.

which is bollocks. Some etymology -

c.1400, from O.Fr. colp "to cut, strike," from M.L. colpus, from V.L. colapus, from L. colaphus "a cuff, box on the ear," from Gk. kolaphos "a blow, slap." Coup d'étate is 1646, from Fr., lit. "stroke of the state." Coup de grâce is 1699, lit. "stroke of grace." from the online etymology dictionary http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coup

and stuff.Menswear (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV??
What's with the NPOV warning on the page? It says "Please see the discussion on the talk page. (April 2008)" but there's nothing here about NPOV in any of the three comments dated to 2008. --Bytor (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

George W Bush
This article is regularly subject to vandalism related to junior. If you are even thinking of seriously adding George W Bush (in relation to the 2000 elections) then you should verify if he complies with the definition. And actually he DOES NOT, because:
 * His election was following the regular contitutional procedures in USA. Yes, their system SUCKS, but it was constitutional.
 * He was supported by almost half of the politically active population by their vote, and not a small minority.
 * Thanks to 911, he enjoyed a comfortable popularity during his first presidency, even with democrats in congress
 * He was reelected in 2004, without absolutely any doubt

In short, he surely deserves to be in hell, but NOT in this article. If you think the opposite, then first sustain your claims with sources, here in this discussion. Alchaemist (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your conclusions, but must dispute you about 2004. I've never seen anyone dispute that he got a plurality of voters nationwide in 2004, but there are allegations of fraud in Ohio (an article in Rolling Stone) which, if true, would still make his election illegitimate. Homunq (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically it was in that the electors cast votes properly. However, the electors in Florida were improperly elected. The SCOTUS has no constitutional right to decide a presidential election. Ironically, it is the strict constructionists that led the majority in a very liberal application.
 * So what?
 * So what?
 * So what?


 * I wouldn't quite call it a coup, but the election was almost certainly stolen through various means. Additionally, it was spoiled. So you had several factors that if changed would have put Al Gore in the White House.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Considérations politiques sur les coups d'État
Recently somebody added anonymously the following sentence: "Probably, it was first used by Gabriel Naudé, in his book 'Considérations politiques sur les coups d'État' (1639)" The sentence was removed with the comment: rmv unsourced contradictory claim. I think, if possible, the contradictory reasons should be stated here in the Talk page, so please go ahead. At least they are not obvious. Also I found a summary in French, which I consider trustworthy, here: http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/BI00916/CONSIDERATIONS_POLITIQUES_SUR_LES_COUPS_D_ETAT_G_Naude.htm Curiously in the article for Gabriel Naudé that work isn't listed yet. Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
No move Just to clarify, the reason non-admins couldn't move the page is because a redirect with more than one edit exists at and would have had to have been deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In french, the world for state (in the political signification) is État, always with a capital letter. I don't know if there's a particular use in english, but Coup d'État is first a french word, so it may be logical to move the article with this orthography... Think about it. Xic667 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I adhere to this, but the page for technical reasons is not easy to move. The reason is that article names are case insensitive, so when you try to move it, it tells you that the article already exists... this should be handled by an administrator I guess. In the "move" action on top, you'll see several tries throughout history. Alchaemist (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose per Naming conventions (capitalization). What is the correct orthography in French does not matter in this case. The French term has been adopted in English as a loanword with lowercase 'é'. See Merriam-Webster and Britannica for example. --Kusunose 06:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Kusunose; this is the English Wikipedia, and it is very uncommon to see the capitalized "E" in English usage. --Russ (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Non. En anglais, s'il vous plaît. Merci. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose As in several other cases, double entendre being the most well known, French and English have gone different ways with French phrases. This is the capitalization of the OED and all of its quotations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - a look through Google Books indicated lowercase e by far prevails in English. -- Biruitorul Talk 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Political coup in Canada
In late 2008, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Québécois launched a political coup against the current minority government run by the Conservative Party of Canada.. This is most certainly not a coup in spirit of the article, that is, a coup d'Etat: it is not unconstitutional. It may have been described as a coup, but that is obviously only a figure of speech. If every sudden political change (as this is what is meant by the word coup in this case) is included the article would become fairly long. I would thus prefer to have this section removed. If no one objects, I will so in a week or so. Pietrow (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and incourage you to be bold. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the entry - this talk page needs scrubbing.--Levalley (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Lansana Conté
Lansana Conté is listed under incumbent leaders - but appears to have died yesterday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansana_Cont%C3%A9#Death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.59.100 (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1973 Chilean coup d'état
Whether or not the US helped the Chilean military in the 1973 Chilean coup d'état is not material to the article on Coup d'état. There is a discussion of US involvement in U.S._intervention_in_Chile. This says:


 * "While U.S. government hostility to the Allende government is unquestioned, the U.S. role in the coup itself remains a highly controversial matter. Claims of their direct involvement in the actual coup are neither proven nor contradicted by publicly available documentary evidence"


 * "There is no evidence that the U.S. instigated or provided material support to Pinochet's successful coup in 1973, but the Nixon administration was undoubtedly pleased with the outcome"

There is also an article called Project FUBELT that makes it clear that the US Government wanted to get rid of the Communist government in Chile. It quotes sources that provide evidence for that wish. But wishing to do something, and doing it are not the same thing.

The article on coup d'état is not the place to advance theories that the CIA helped overthrow the communist government of Chile in 1973. I would commend to anyone who thinks that the CIA helped the coup an article entitled Double-Blind: Predicting the Pinochet Coup, by Kristian Gustafson, in the December 2005 RUSI Journal, which says "not only did the US not help in the Chilean coup, but they also barely knew it was coming." According to the article, the Chilean military did not tell the Americans about the coup in advance, because they did not think that the Americans were capable of keeping a secret!--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Veto coup d’état - not necessarily fascist repression
The 20 July 1944 plot by parts of the German military to overthrow the democratically elected government of Germany is an example of a failed veto d’état. It would probably be a good idea to change the POV wording of the definition tending to fascist repression and killing. I have no problem with the killing bit - the plotters tried to murder the German head of state/head of government and the people with him. Had they been successful they would have had to repress the Nazis and the many Germans who still supported the Nazis. However claiming that this would have constituted facist repression makes little sense.


 * I have therefore deleted fascist.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing fascist, as the ideology by itself does not define the coup, although Latin America gives excellent out of the manual examples of what a coup is, and they were all fascist. The thing I find funny is how you sustain the removal. So basically you are saying that there was a working democracy in Germany by 1944? And that Hitler (you don’t name it) was an avid follower of the German Republic constitution. Now, that is really interesting... also is funny that the plotters were fascist too. Greetings :) Alchaemist (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

''The following comments were placed on User:Toddy1 by 93.81.188.21 and have been moved here. The IP used to place these comments belongs to INVESTELEKTROSVIAZ LTD, in Moscow.''

Мудак, зачем ты испортил вот эту статью: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d'état&oldid=283162395 ? Я, кстати, не коммунист, а монархист, к твоему сведению...

Алексей Зырянов, помощник Великого Князя Сергея, Главы Российской Общины Аравийского полуострова. http://emir-sergei.livejournal.com/ 93.81.188.21 (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)