Talk:List of coups and coup attempts/Archive 1

Correct plural
Sorry, but it's "coups d'état". Using "coup d'états" as the plural is tantamount to saying "states coup" instead of "state coups" in English. Check m-w.com as a reference, for instance. I've reverted the move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 19:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Which coup attempts?
On the map, Hungary and Romania are painted light green, but they are not listed in the list of coups. Why are they marked on the map? For which coup attempts? The rise on power of the Arrow Cross in Hungary? Or its cause, the unsuccessful attempt of Horthy to withdraw from the war? Or something related to the revolution of 1956? What about Romania? Something about the 1989 revolution, considered by some to be a conspiracy of the inner circle of Ceausescu's securitate to overthrow him and remain in power? Or something earlyer, in the World War? The abdication of Michael I of Romania? Could somebody clarify it? --V. Szabolcs 20:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Relevant discussion here. -  SpL o T  (*C*+u+g) 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Czechoslovak Coup
The Communists had control of the cabinet and legislature in 1948. They then merged with other political parties to form a unity front. This is not a coup.


 * Reference? -  SpL o T  (*C*+u+g) 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was this redirected?
Uh, why this page deleted and moved to a much less complete page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cm205 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Sub-Headings
I added several sub headings, mostly one for every decade, I did this because the list as I found it was very hard to navigate. I was looking for a single coup and it was quite difficult. Na uf ana :  talk  06:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

China
In 1976, the dominate political faction within the Chinese Communist Party, state and armed forces were removed at gun point by an alliance of other factions. Surely this deserves mention. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Deng? Could you elaborate some please? I'm currently working to improve this article. I know it's far from complete, so any help would be great.  Grsz  X  05:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dates
This article needs actual dates in addition to years. Jmj713 (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Chile Junta001.jpg
The image File:Chile Junta001.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Tejero golpe.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --14:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran election
I've reverted the Iran election paragraph; the events as described don't seem to match the definition of a coup (takeover of a state by former outsiders via control of the military etc.), and the paragraph itself is unsourced and reads like advocacy. Populus (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I revert it back. Iranian officials reject any coup, but huge military intervention in election, and in streets would make the claim doubtful. Just let people discuss their opinion on whether or not a coup is happenning, in discussion section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.250.150 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be original research. We shouldn't add Iran as a coup because we think it is one but only if reliable sources call it one.--76.66.188.112 (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Inside iran, everyone knows it was a coup

Don't fight propaganda with propaganda, and especially not here please. When I read that, it jumped out as bs, seeing as I know the formal definition of a coup. A president already controls key areas of the government.. he can't grab his own power, that act is already done. 76.167.249.45 (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Two things are being missed here: 1. The general definition of coup does not necessitate use of armed forces to change a regime. It's usually something along the line of "sudden deposition of change of government using illegal or unconstitutional means". (This is in response to Populus) In any case police riot were present in streets of Tehran during the election, and they took position inside the Ministry of the Interors while the votes were being counted. 2. It is true that Ahmadinejhad is the current president of Iran and already has the power. But what an election does is determines who the power will transfer to. If Mousavi was the elected president, then the power was to transfer to him, and using this election fraud Ahmadinejhad has grabbed power from Mousavi. (response to the previous post)Blackberry000 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing that matters concerning this is if there are any WP:RS that defines this as a coup. As long as noone has provided any, then it cannot be included in this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada 2008
The proposed Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition in Canada is composed of MP's who were elected, and is not unconstitutional by current Canadian law, so I'm not sure it qualifies as a "coup d'etat" Sebd1969 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC) seb1969

lol 67.68.19.226 (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The 1984 coup in Guinea is missing
The 1984 coup in Guinea is not listed. Jmoldale (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2008: Iran
The section about Iran, 2008, is completely incoherent. Should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.10.99 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

USA 2000-2001?
Obviously, this is debatable, as many people accept the validity of the reasoning in Bush v. Gore. However, there are certainly a number of people who have reasoned disagreements with the legality of that decision. (And before someone says "The Supreme Court said so so it can't be unconstitutional" - if I used a mind-control ray to have five members of the Supreme Court declare me King of the USA tomorrow with the rider "this ruling is constitutional", would that somehow not be a coup?)

censurethefive.org has a measured exposition of this point of view. There is no exhaustive list of legal scholars who subscribe to this view, that I know of, but there are certainly many prominent legal scholars who have penned disagreements with Bush v. Gore strong enough as to question its very legitimacy.

I don't suggest including it in the list unqualified, but I do suggest something like "A significant minority of legal scholars contest the legitimacy of Bush v. Gore, and view USA 2000-2001 as a coup." Homunq (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please find a reputable wp:rs that states unequivocally "A significant minority of legal scholars contest the legitimacy of Bush v. Gore, and view USA 2000-2001 as a coup.". Then we can discuss the reliability of your source--Work permit (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even then, it's still not a "coup" for the purposes we are talking about here. It's a legal dispute, not a government being overthrown. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Italy
Anon editors have been attempting to add the following: Italy March 5, 2010, Italian Government changed the electoral law during regional elections. It is forbitten to the Government in charge (Legge 23 Agosto 1988, n°400 Articolo 15 Comma 2 - Costituzione Italiana Art. 72 comma 4) which mandates a normal procedure of approval by the Parliament for laws concerning electoral issues.. These edits have been reverted by a number of editors, because the event has not been described as a coup by any reliable third party source. If you wish to include this event in the list, or the see also section, please provide third party sources that describe this event as a coup. Please read wp:rs to see what a reliable third party source is.--Work permit (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even with a reliable source that it happened, one will need to reliably call it an actual coups d'état, not just using it as hyperbole. I can't see where a government changing its own laws is an attempt to overthrow the government. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Split
Suggestion: split this page into 4:
 * 1) Pre-nineteenth century
 * 2) Nineteenth century
 * 3) Twentieth century
 * 4) Twenty-first century.

Apart from better manageability (list is getting quite big) this would give a chance to actually make the earlier pages complete. At the same time, there really should be an attempt to clarify the distinction between this and List of revolutions and rebellions. I wonder also if (1864) "Troops of French Emperor Napoleon III invade Mexico and install Habsburg pretender Maximilian as Emperor." is really a "coup". Rd232 talk 11:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I've started List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2000. Needs 2000-2010 moving there from here. Any comments? Rd232 talk 18:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

JFK?
The JFK assassination is listed as a coup here. Granted, it's a legitimate theory, but that seems more like personal speculation than concrete fact. I'm removing it unless anyone can find some previously unknown concrete evidence of this coup. [This is user Magic Flyin Lemur, but yet again I've forgotten my password and am too tired to bother fixing it tonight. I'll sign this when I get around to it]
 * It's speculation the doesn't belong on this page. This is a list of coups d'état and coup attempts, not alleged or theoretical attempts. RxS (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speculation! The vast majority of eyewitnesses, consistent supermajorities of Americans and a huge body of scholarly work, and still it's mere speculation that a coup d'etat took place in Dallas in 1963. Guess if the New York Times doesn't say something is so, it ain't so. Love the way so many self-styled rational thinkers will blindly take something on faith as long as their unthinking speculation is backed up by a trustworthy and "sober" media narrative. You have privileged the official government narrative about the Kennedy Assassination, excluding a compelling and credible competing theory that is believed by most people, that fits the known facts and is supported by a large minority of historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.107.132 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * E. Howard Hunt himself implicated Lyndon Johnson in the Kennedy Assassination! At what point is it okay to say maybe this was a coup d'etat? I understand the New York Times hasn't agreed to that position, but why do they (and by extension, the government from which they transcribe most of their news narratives) get to decide the "truth"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.107.132 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be neutral point of view WP:NPOV to note that there is considerable suspicion that Kennedy's assassination was a coup. Please see John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At best, it's a "maybe": one of many possible theories. Including it here thus constitutes undue weight, and I think it should be removed. -- Irn (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits during Three Kingdoms Periods of China
I have a few coups to list:

260 AD: Cao Wei's Emperor, Cao Mao, had a failed coup against Sima Zhao. 249 AD: Incident at Gaoping Tombs, where Sima Yi held a coup against Cao Shuang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.189.75 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Niger
Category:Niger

Please list the coups d'etat in Niger, there were numerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvaincool (talk • contribs) 22:08, December 16, 2012 (edit) (undo)

18th century Russia
Elizabeth's overthrow of Ivan VI in 1741 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Elizabeth#1741_coup) and Catherine II's overthrow of Peter III in 1762 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Ii#Reign_of_Peter_III_and_the_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat_of_July_1762). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit rebozo (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

18 Fructidor
The Coup of 18 Fructidor in 1797 is often said to be the first coup d'etat. At any rate, the word originates from this incident. Yet it isn't even listed. I am skeptical about the material from ancient and medieval history. But what standard are these events are coups? A coup implies that the people of a country found out all of a sudden they were now under a new regime. Kauffner (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

American revolution
Why is the american revolution mentioned as a coup d'etat?? They removed themselves from british influence, they didn't want yo take control over the british empire! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.133.247.223 (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's on List of revolutions and rebellions, though I'm not sure what the precise distinction is. -- Beland (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal: sortable table
List of successful coups d'état could be merged here. If the resulting combined list were made into a sortable table, it would be easy to arrange by date (as this list currently does) or country (as that list currently does). One column could also indicate which were successful, so if you were interested in one or the other type you could sort that way as well. -- Beland (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, a merge is reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree on this one Lenny (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now, I'm going to re-name the "successful" list to "...by country", since "successful" probably isn't a good word to use, anyways. Then, if someone wants to do a table, they still could on either list, although the main list is getting pretty long, as it is. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Syria coup and international backing
I've just restored material I added earlier today on U.S. backing for the March 1949 Syrian Coup. There are many, many details that might be written about the event, but the coup's sponsorship is less a detail, and more a critical piece of information answering who, what, where, when. In general, we should note international coup sponsors if they're known: that information is usually more significant than the random general chosen to launch the coup. -Darouet (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Organization suggestion
It may be a good idea to separate this list into successful coups and coup attempts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.248.3 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit to 1979 section
In this edit you attempted to remove some vandalism, but I think you inadvertently removed some material which had been in the article for some time.

I have attempted to restore it. Please check to see if you agree.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Boy, that was a long time ago. I haven't a clue what was going thru my head then, little alone right now.  I trust you to do what is right, including reverting any of my edits now or in the future.  Bgwhite (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of coups d'état and coup attempts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://educ.ar/educar/site/educar/Alzamientos%20militares%20despu%E9s%20de%201983.html?uri=urn:kbee:38e173e0-0ae9-11dd-888e-00163e000043&page-uri=urn:kbee:ff9221c0-13a9-11dc-b8c4-0013d43e5fae

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of coups d'état and coup attempts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://educ.ar/educar/site/educar/Alzamientos%20militares%20despu%E9s%20de%201983.html?uri%3Durn%3Akbee%3A38e173e0-0ae9-11dd-888e-00163e000043%26page-uri%3Durn%3Akbee%3Aff9221c0-13a9-11dc-b8c4-0013d43e5fae

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Absalom & David
Biblical characters Absalom & David?--RicHard-59 (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Coup d'état attempt on ISIS leader Baghdadi
I don't know if you consider this as a coup, but should we add this? What are your thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there an American coup happening now?
I know it's not considered a coup against him when he's not president, but when he is, it will be. Do you think of this as one, which started today when the electoral college decided who is president? Jonathan7157 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Short answer: No. Cambalachero (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Catalan Coup d'État 2017, should it even exist here?
An IP user added this entry on January 6, 2017. The entry has no references at all, and even if it did, the entire situation is highly debatable.

The first "sentence" features several contentious accusations and several inaccuracies:
 * The law named "Law of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic" was voted on September 6th, and passed two days later, on September 8th.
 * It was voted and approved by the Parliament of Catalonia, not by "Independentist" parties.
 * Yes, I suppose it derogates from the Constitution of Spain, which is normal when the objective is to create a new state, with its own constitution. It's being said with malice when there was no intent to harm the Spanish Constitution - as in, to make it somehow "worse" for the citizens of Spain (its other Autonomous Communities), as if suddenly they're no longer under that constitution.
 * The transition to a new State implies that it'll rely on the old framework until the new one is ready and can be made effective.
 * The laws in question have nothing to do with Val d'Aran (which has a special status within Catalonia, with Aranese being co-official language in that Comarca. It has no "right to secession" under the Spanish Constitution nor under the Catalan Statute of Autonomy, in fact - public opinion is very accepting of Val d'Aran having the right to decide if it wishes to stay with Spain, become independent, or stay with Catalonia (as an independent state from Spain).
 * "abolition of the separation between Judicial and Executive power". This argument heavily relies on one (1) Jurists Association, which came into being just one year ago, called Llibertats (Liberties, in English). It consists of 30 Catalan jurists. The motive behind the argument is the "decision" to absolve Catalan politicians of any Independence related charges they've been accused of by the Spanish Judicial system, on the surface it sounds like the executive power is taking control of the judicial power, but how does this argument stick once you remove those Catalan politicians? Suddenly the Generalitat no longer has the judicial power?

The second sentence claims it was done illegally. Legality is evidently a very difficult concept for many people to grasp. When something is illegal, it means that something is forbidden by a law. The argument makes a reference to the way the two laws were passed in the Catalan Parliament, using a mechanism called "lectura única", roughly translated as "single reading". The mechanism is designed to pass laws that theoretically everyone in the chamber agrees on very quickly, without prolonging it with unnecessary delays. That's what it's meant for. But under no circumstances is it limited to any particular laws, it also doesn't stipulate (because of its nature) that everyone has to be voting in favor of any proposed law. The Catalan parties, Junts pel Sí and CUP used this mechanism to pass both laws on the same day, if I'm not mistaken, it took the entire day, as the parties opposed to it didn't want it approved and delayed it as much as they could.

You may call it a dirty trick, and I'd agree with you. But it's nonetheless legal and constitutional, as per the decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court to back the Catalan Parliament's procedure. The proposed laws do not modify in any way the Catalan Statute of Autonomy, they don't need a Qualified Majority (2/3rds of the Chamber), and the Parliament's lawyers don't have any executive or judicial power, they're there to give their expert opinions and advise, their decisions are not binding, it works in the exact same way for the Spanish Senate (which also quite happily ignores their own lawyers). Yes, the same court actually suspended and later annulled both laws.

The Constitutional Court does not declare something as legal or illegal, all it deals with is whether something is constitutional or not. In this case, the two laws are clearly unconstitutional as they violate the Constitution.

This effectively made them unbinding and they were even removed from the DOGC, where all approved laws are posted, a procedure that is stipulated in law and is seen as proof of legitimacy and validity.

Next comes a series of accusations that come with no accompanied proof (well, the entire entry lacks even one citation). Under the circumstances, the Catalan Government did its utmost to guarantee that every Catalan citizen could vote. There were ballot locations, envelopes, papers, writing material, personnel, time, census, etc. The was a system that prevented double-voting. But all that doesn't matter, as the subject of this entry isn't how well the referendum was managed, but whether there was an actual coup d'État here.

You can argue until you're blue in the face about Catalan independence, I'm not here to do that. I'm here to argue that there hasn't been any coup d'État by the Catalan politicians, consider my points:
 * They are/were the actual Government of Catalonia, they were already in power.
 * They did not seek to take control of Spain.
 * They did not use violence or weapons. Violence happened when the Spanish (Paramilitary) Police and the National Police started using it on the people. You can argue about that in a separate wikipedia article.
 * I've yet to see in this list any coup d'État that used a referendum as a means to seize power, the scarce number of examples of referendums involved with coups d'État all come after the power has been seized, and not as the means to do it in the first place.
 * Same can be said in regards to the approval of the two laws discussed here, a democratic mechanism is now compared to a gun?

I don't know if there's even any point to this, and I don't know how to use Wikipedia very well, but I couldn't just let this go once I saw this. I hope you understand and I hope I didn't mess anything up here. Ylcard (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

October Revolution
Should the October Revolution be considered a coup? It was a small, armed, insurrection against a constitutionally-established government. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Events on 23 January 2019
I have added, restored, and maintained the listing identifying the claim for the presidency by Juan Guaido as a coup. It had been removed and, after being restored, edited to appear as if the question is ambiguous. I have now restored the original text, added more details, and included references to the Venezuelan constitution and supreme court ruling.

If anyone disagrees that the event that occurred in Venezuela on 23rd January 2019 constitutes an attempted coup, please lay out your argument in this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.199.0 (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think it counts as a coup. The legislature declared Maduro's election to be illegitimate. Personally, to maintain a NPOV, it should not be listed until the crisis is resolved IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no involvement of the military and there hasn't been a forceful change of government. In Latin America there have been allegations of "parliamentary" or "media" coups, but the concepts are clearly incorrect.--Jamez42 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This list includes attempted coup. Although there was no change of government, the events on the 23rd of January - and many others following that date - do constitute an attempted coup. If there was any doubt about that, the events taking place today (30 April 2019) make the question crystal clear.

I have once again restored the listing identifying the claim for the presidency by Juan Guaido as a coup. I have also added a note about the events on 30 April 2019, as the two events are clearly related and part of the same ongoing process. Responding to the three main objections to this listing:


 * 1. Comment about the legislature declaring Maduro's election illegitimate: this is addressed in the added explanation and references, including the Venezuelan Constitution and the supreme court ruling concerning this case. By the definition of "coup d'etat" - also referenced - this is objectively a coup.


 * 2. Comment that there is no involvement of the military or no forceful change of government: see again the definition of "coup d'etat". A change of government is not necessary for it to be an "attempted coup", which is also subject matter covered by this article. Moreover, military involvement is also not necessary.


 * 3. That to maintain a NPOV it should not be listed until the crisis is resolved: in spite of the crisis being ongoing, there are objective and verifiable facts that qualify this as a coup by definition. I have posted references accordingly. If you disagree, please explain why these references do not support the case that these events constitute an attempted coup.

Given the references posted, to me it seems that the question of whether this is a coup or not moves the discussion towards the legitimacy of the references provided or the correctness of the definition of the term "coup d'etat". If you accept the definition and believe the references are trustworthy, then the matter is settled.77.59.147.2 (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's go over the events again. On 2019.01.23, Guaido declared himself president - an attempt to seize power - but his action was ruled by the supreme court to be unconstitutional. These are the two conditions of the definition of a coup d'etat. One might argue that his declaration was not a serious one, and therefore not a serious attempt to seize power. However, his declaration was most certainly taken seriously by the US government, which, for example, handed him over control over Venezuelan bank accounts.77.59.147.2 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"11:38, 1 May 2019‎ Jamez42 talk contribs‎ 90,840 bytes -1,096‎ Undid revision 895002968 by 77.59.147.2 (talk) Stop edit warring and discuss the changes (WP:BRD). No arguments have been provided on how the 23 January is a coup attempt. Next revert will be a violation of WP:3RR"

The arguments have been provided both on the article segment and on this talk page. Yet, you revert my changes without yourself providing any arguments. Could you at least please outline your objections to the arguments I have presented?77.59.147.2 (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I have created an account so that I can communicate better. I'm just writing this note here to say that past edits/talks from 77.59.147.2 and this account are from the same person.DrTreePirate (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right, I was focusing on the 23 January events. Thank you for pointing it out. This is also a discussion that has had place before, and consists mostly in two factors, the legitimacy of the pronouncement and the nature. The presidential elections were Maduro was elected were not legitimate; the reasons of why have been thoroughly covered in its main article talk page. A similar discussion regarding the legitimacy of the presidency was also covered in Maduro's talk page. The current and de facto Supreme Tribunal was also named with several irregularities, and despite this would be the third time that I argue why, I think it's better that I copy again said reasons:




 * That being said, it's far fetched to say there has been a coup attempt given that a forceful seizure of power, or said attempt, did not take place, just like it didn't yesterday. In 2017, the National Assembly claimed the Supreme Tribunal carried out a coup by taking the legislative powers from the Assembly, a definition from which I also disagree for the same reason.


 * In short, there's not an agreement regarding on the coup definition, just like there isn't with naming Maduro a de facto head state, dictator or "usurper". Per the neutrality policy, it's better to avoid this definition altogether. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Events on 30 April 2019
It seems to me that the following comments refer to the events on 30 April, and not 23 January. Since I argue that the attempted coup occurred on 23 January, I have now split the conversation to separate the two dates so that we can discuss them separately. I have also removed the statement about 30 April from the main article, since there is no agreement that there was an attempted coup on that date. 77.59.147.2 (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible for you to use a different source? I am concerned that the cited source is subjective and possibly unreliable. Please see WP:RS for the guidelines regarding this issue. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read through the article you linked, but could not find grounds for objection to the source I referenced. Could you please explain specifically why you think the source is not an objective one?77.59.147.2 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that with respect to this situation, it is hard to find reliable sources in English-speaking media. Most English-speaking media covering the events in Venezuela is from the US, and the participation of large American news organizations in propaganda to support US foreign policy is very well documented - see for example Manufacturing Consent. Even with respect to the current situation, well-established US sources such as CNN have been caught fabricating events. For example, CNN claimed in an article that their own correspondent witnessed that the Venezuelan troops set fire to trucks at the border with Colombia. This story was later shown to be false by the New York Times - the fire was started by an errant Molotov cocktail thrown by one of the protesters at the troops.77.59.147.2 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As I stated in my edit summary, this is undergoing discussion in the main talk page and the consensus is moving towards this is more of an uprising rather than a coup. Guaidó called the Venezuelans to take into the streets, while the soldiers that supported him did not attempt to take any government, military or power institutions, unlike historic coup attempts in Venezuela. The focus of the protest was in Altamira, just next to a military air base, and the defecting soldiers didn't attack it. Hours later, there were nationwide protests, and in a point forces loyal to Maduro ran over protesters with an armoured vehicle. There was only a single death, attributed to colectivos loyal to Maduro that shot at a protester, so that also demonstrates the lack of clashes between soldiers. In short, and comparing that to successful or attempted coups this year, there wasn't even an attempt to take over power by force. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're saying that "the consensus is moving towards this being an uprising rather than coup" concerning the events on 23 January or 30 April. It seems to me that you mean the latter not the former. Therefore, I have split the conversation so that we can talk about the two dates separately.77.59.147.2 (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the events on 2019.04.30 may not constitute an attempted coup - but that's not what the entry claims. The claim is that the attempt occurred on 23rd January. Since the attempt failed, and Guaido still had support inside, and especially outside Venezuela (and particularly the US, which handed him control of bank accounts and has been attempting to replace official Venezuelan diplomats with Guaido appointees in international bodies), he continued to search for ways to seize the presidency. That, I agree, is still an ongoing crisis, and may yet end up into another attempted coup (according to the definition).77.59.147.2 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion
I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the recent events of Venezuela in the list. The article is already listed in the List of revolutions and rebellions article, and the above discussion is stale. Per legitimacy and per the definition of a coup, the events should not be listed as such. As I have mentioned, there are important differences between previous coups/attempts in Venezuela, as well as countries that have had coups this year, such as Sudan. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is hardly stale; the last comment there is less than 24 hours old. The "uprising" itself is less than 72 hours old. The tag will alert readers to the dispute while is it ongoing, and there's no way that I can think of to include the tag without also including the link. -- Kendrick7talk 15:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't notice a link to the discussion was included. Fair enough. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * US-geführter Putschversuch in Venezuela (Translation: "US-led coup attempt in Venezuela.") → I strongly agree with the inclusion. The US-led rightwing coup collapsed as the ring-leaders flee to the Chilean and Brazilian embassies. --87.170.201.182 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not stale. I just haven't had the time since my last contribution to research and respond. Overall, I disagree with the assessment of Jamez42 and still believe the event of 23rd January should be included (and now also 30 April), but I need to gather the evidence and argument together. Addressing the objections you raised just now:


 * 1) The fact that the event is already listed in another article does not preclude it from being listed in this one when appropriate.
 * 2) "Per legitimacy and definition of a coup.."
 * 3) Legitimacy: This is a deeper question, and I believe you are wrong here. But as I said, I need to present the case properly. Nonetheless, two things can be said here for the purposes of the coup/not-coup discussion: Had there not been immense pressure from the US government to sanction and exclude the Maduro government, there would be no question, internationally, as to who the head of state is. As a matter of fact, even now the UN and most of the world still recognize the legitimacy of Maduro's government. Domestically, he is recognized as legitimate by the majority of the population, the supreme court, the army, and the constitutional assembly. The only government body that refuses to recognize his legitimacy is the National Assembly, primarily because its majority is the opposition (and even in the National Assembly the opinion is far from consensual). Lastly, it must be reminded that this same National Assembly was held in contempt of court for refusing to unseat members who were proven to be elected in fraudulent elections.
 * 4) Definition of coup d'etat: I seriously don't understand how you can challenge on this ground. Here's the definition, from Wikipedia itself: "overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction." Is Maduro's government the existing government? Yes, even if you question his legitimacy, his government is the de facto agency running the country. Is Guaido's bid for the presidency constitutional? No: . I think the claim that it is not a coup attempt, simply because you happen to disagree or question the particular institutional mechanisms and decisions, is extremely weak.
 * 5) New coups/attempts don't have to resemble previous coups/attempts in order to qualify as such.
 * As I said, I still think these events should definitely be included in this list. Moreover, I don't think it is necessary (interesting though it is) to go into the nitty-gritty about Maduro's legitimacy in order to decide whether these events qualify as coup attempts or not.DrTreePirate (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You're answering to my response to Kendrick7 with statements that I did also respond above. Repeating the discussion would only create a cycle that is not helpful. For example, quoting the Constitution and the Tribunal's you're not taking into account the information that I provided before, including that the Supreme Tribunal lacks legitimacy. Just today one of the justices left the Chamber she was in complaining that the judges wouldn't have access or would not be able to discuss its latest decision. There are also de jure justices that were named in 2017 and despite being persecuted, they still making decisions regarding the country, including ratifying the legitimacy of Guaidó has president. There is no separation of powers in Venezuela, and one of the best examples of that is that since the National Assembly was elected it has had not the oppotunity to act freely. As for the second factor, I have already explained above and in the main article's talk page that there was no attempt to seize the power per se. There were no captured buildings or institutions, not even an attempt to do so, and it is disputed that making a call upon the Armed Forces or the Venezuelans could constitute a coup attempt.


 * In short, the events do not meet the definition of a coup attempt, and given that its legitimacy is disputed it's better to not include it in the list at all. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Reading back I see that I wasn't clear in one point, and which you haven't responded to. That is: I think the legitimacy of the existing government appears not to be a question in determining whether an attempt to depose that government classifies as a coup or not. I say this for the following reasons:


 * In the research I have done so far, this question of legitimacy of the existing government is not raised or imposed as a condition for classification as a coup, or as part of the definition of the term. (I'm no scholar on the subject, and I admit my sources for this are limited: Wikipedia's own article, a few articles that I found online, and discussions I had in person with friends/colleagues.)
 * The question of legitimacy also imposes a further complication, namely that classification of coup/not-coup depends on the observer's definition or understanding of the term legitimacy. For example, one can argue a monarchy or dictatorship is not legitimate, and therefore an event in which a monarch or dictator is overthrown could be deemed not-a-coup.
 * I think this is an interesting question in itself, and is perhaps worth exploring in a separate discussion/contribution in the article about coup d'etat. In any case, it's my understanding that in so far as the definition of "coup d'etat" goes, the word "government" refers to the de facto executive branch, irrespective of legitimacy. I'll revisit the definition in a new branch of this talk page.
 * Referring to the second factor, that you claim there was no attempt power per se: I think the facts reported to date plainly indicate otherwise. I will respond to that again in more detail shortly.DrTreePirate (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Linking facts and events to the definition of Coup d'etat
DrTreePirate (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC) It appears to me that a difficulty in our discussion so far arises from a lack of clarity in the operating definition of the term "coup d'etat" and how it relates to the facts and events. Here I will go over the definition quoted directly from coup d'état, and link the facts and events of the last few months to this definition. I'm hoping this will help bring clarity to the debate. The definition:

"A coup d'état ... means the overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction."

Breaking down into the different terms:
 * 1) existing government — I argue that the term "existing government" does not presuppose the legitimacy of said government (i.e. an existing government can be illegitimate). Rather, for the purposes of this definition, the term "existing government" refers to the de facto executive power and its institutions. In this respect, there is no doubt that Nicolas Maduro is the head of the de facto executive power in Venezuela, and therefore should be considered the "existing government" regardless of any discussions about the legitimacy of his government.
 * 2) overthrow — I think this term is generally clear. To me, it means seizing control of executive power. I believe Guaido has attempted to seize control of executive power, and that the facts support this conclusion:
 * 3) He declared himself president. This alone is not necessarily an attempt to seize power (a French comedian did the same in response to France's support for Guaido). However, as president of the National Assembly, Guaido's declaration was serious, and was likewise interpreted both domestically and internationally as such.
 * 4) He indeed succeeded, albeit to a limited extent, in seizing some power after his declaration:
 * 5) he obtained the recognition as the "legitimate" president of Venezuela by the United States and the countries that are generally aligned with its foreign policy (EU, several other countries in the Americas).
 * 6) the United States government transferred control of Venezuelan state bank accounts to him. As far as I'm aware, this is the most significant success he achieved - not only does it give him access to vast resources, it also deprives the "existing government" of the same.
 * 7) the Organization of American States has decided to seat a representative appointed by the Venezuelan National Assembly - a break from its own rules and tradition, in which representatives are appointed by the executive branch of government.
 * 8) there are currently ongoing discussions in the US, Brazil, and Colombia about military action against the "existing government" of Venezuela with the aim to unseat Maduro and instate Guaido. Guaido himself has not repudiated such military actions, and has indeed stated that "violence is the last option". The implication is, therefore, that he will do what it takes to seize power. This is a clear indication that his intention is to overthrow the government, regardless of the outcome reached to date.
 * 9) "typically refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power..." — I note that the definition qualifies these terms with "typically", meaning that the question of legality or constitutionality is given as an example but is not necessarily a requirement for a coup d'etat to take place. Rather, the heart of the definition is "overthrow of an existing government". This informs my interpretation/definition of the term "existing government", but also loosens the definition of "overthrow" because it opens up the possibility for classifying as a coup the overthrow of an existing government while seemingly adhering to a constitutional process (e.g. the overthrow of Dilma Roussef in Brazil was deemed by many to be a coup).
 * 10) Since the definition does not imply a requirement of illegality or unconstitutionality, I don't think it's necessary to link facts or events to this part of the definition. Nonetheless, I note that a substantial amount of the discussion on the topic so far has focused on this aspect. If we can get consensus on this part of the definition, we can spare ourselves a great amount of argument. Any thoughts?
 * 11) "...by a dictator, the military, or a political faction." Again, this part of the definition is qualified by "typically". Nonetheless, I think Guaido and supporting members of the National Assembly can be considered "a political faction".

What do you think of the above breakdown? Do you agree or disagree with the definition? How about matching the facts/events?DrTreePirate (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Having read the response I think we both agree that a coup is still a coup even if it is against a dictator or it is arguably legitimate by nature. This was actually an example that I cited in another discussion, in 1958 dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez was ousted from power in Venezuela, allowing democracy to start in Venezuela, and nowadays the events are accepted as a coup by scholars, only having a positive connotation. Arguably, again, this is the case with the recent coup in Sudan.


 * However, I have stated that there should be elements of this these events to be defined as a coup, and given that on 23 January there wasn't military involvement, that was the reason of why the legitimacy of the act was my main argument. On the other hand, the rest of the crisis also needs to be analyzed. A coup needs to be sudden; if we consider all of the progressive advancements in the crisis, such as the seizure of bank accounts or the acceptance of Guaidó's ambassador to the OAS, I cannot share this definition of a coup. That said, a coup also needs to be an attempt or a successful seizure of the executive branch/power; the aforementioned events don't seem to qualify as much. The government has used the term "continued coup" before, but I don't think it is accurate. In 2017, when the Supreme Tribunal nullified the National Assembly and assumed legislative powers, the opposition considered the act as a coup, a definition I don't share either. Someone may argue that it is a self-coup, but that would be a different discussion and surely not the case here, specially since self-coups have a list on their own.


 * I hope I'm not muddying the above breakdown, but I wanted to discuss those two aspects: sudden and seizure of executive power, especially since we are now not talking only about the 23 January and 30 April events, but the whole presidential crisis.--Jamez42 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, it looks like we have successfully narrowed down the discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong: in the above breakdown, all aspects are uncontroversial except that with respect to item 2, "overthrow". With that assumption, I respond to your points as follows:
 * You stated: "there should be elements of this events to be defined as a coup" — I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the events in 2019 should share elements with previous coup events in Venezuela's history to be considered a coup? If that's what you mean, I disagree - this is a point that I have already refuted in the discussion above. Can you please clarify?
 * You claim that a coup needs to be sudden. I disagree, and I can immediately point out three problems with that claim:
 * Other coups/attempted-coups listed in the article are events that were not "sudden". For example, the 2014 coup in Yemen took place over 4 months. Would you therefore remove that event from the main article because it didn't happen "suddenly"?
 * There is nothing on any definition that I have seen that states that a coup needs to be sudden. The only uses where "suddenness" is considered are loose, and the word "sudden" is used in conjunction: "a sudden coup" implying that the definition does not exclude such as thing as a "non-sudden coup".
 * I argue that the events in discussion constitute a "failed coup attempt". In this respect, the word "sudden" is problematic. How does that qualification fit within failed coup attempts? What particular characteristics make a failed coup attempt "sudden"?
 * You claim "the aforementioned events don't seem to qualify as (an attempt ... of seizure of the executive branch/power)". Please forgive me for being blunt, but this point seems absurd to me. Guaido declared himself president − he claims that he is the head of the executive branch — and moreover: he received and continues to receive international assistance in order to achieve his aim of overthrowing the government; so far he has achieved limited success by obtaining control of overseas financial resources belonging to the state; and he has repeated on multiple occasions that his objective was and still is to seize the executive power, by force if necessary. How does "the aforementioned event not qualify as an attempt"? Under what definition of the word "attempt" can these events reasonably be disqualified as one?
 * If a response to the above points is not provided, I think the entry for "Venezuela 2019" should be reinstated. DrTreePirate (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I too feel that the discussion is getting easier.


 * I'm saying the 2019 should have the element of any coup, having the historical coups in Venezuela only as reference.
 * I admit I don't understand this line of reasoning. Looking for the Yemen article, I found that it's titled "Houthi takeover in Yemen" and that the coup definition isn't shared by everyone; this seems to fit the definition of a civil war. When the coup in Spain failed in 1936, a civil war ensued for three years, and even though the result was the overthrow of the government, as it happens with many civil wars, the three year period is not known as a coup attempt, but a civil war.
 * I'm sorry if I wasn't clear with the statement of seizure of power, but I thought it was understood this was by means of force and violence, which I hope we can agree among the characteristics of a coup. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I invite any other uninvolved editor to comment on this, since may not always be able to respond. I personally think that such a controversial and disputed definition should not be included. Even the cited Yemen coup, which I understand has more acceptance than in the case of Venezuela, is not included in the list. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Coup definition
Some of the events listed in the page for example Mao Zedong in 1949 and the Cuban Revolution were all results of long civil wars. This would not usually qualify as coups unless there are modified definition otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quangsp (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 Michigan kidnapping plot
By all definitions, it was a plan to coup the state government of Michigan. If we can’t include the 2020 Michigan governor kidnapping plot then why have the 1933 business plot? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2020
86.58.92.26 (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1957 alleged Jordanian military coup attempt
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

US election
The 2020 United States presidential election should be removed. It does not fit the criteria. LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 20:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Which RS say it does not fit the criteria? 97.126.60.176 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

To 97*: please see my comment above in the other section about this. --DrakeGray (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020: Remove Donald Trump
I believe it would be best to remove Donald Trump's section at the bottom of this list (for now at least), due to consensus on his Talk page about calling his actions a coup. --58.162.223.230 (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC) 58.162.223.230 (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Maybe I missed it, but I see several suggestions to remove that section, but no consensus on the matter.  RudolfRed (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, please see Talk:Donald Trump. Specifically this consensus: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_128 --58.162.223.230 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done None of the sources given described it as a coup or attempted coup, so I went ahead and removed it.  Seagull123  Φ  14:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, if the need is for sources, here’s The New Yorker, ABC News, The Atlantic, New York Magazine, The Guardian ,New York Mag (diff author)... Innisfree987 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it couldn't ever be included, just that the sources that were used when I removed it didn't mention the word "coup" - and so an obvious case of WP:OR which needed to be removed. I'm not going to pass a judgement on whether it should be included (obviously with sources) or not, as I don't have an opinion on it - I'll leave that up to other editors.  Seagull123  Φ  17:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Have now updated the section to comply fully with your picky, but not-unreasonable, request to use references that include the word coup, I find it immediately reverted by User:Beshogur. It is beginning to appear that removing this section is a political action, and ask for your assistance in getting it protection from vandalism. Ethnic laundry (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it is not a "picky" policy, please read WP:OR and WP:V - Wikipedia only states what reliable sources say about a subject, so saying something that is not cited in reliable sources is original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, please don't accuse me and of "persistent vandalism" as you did in your edit summary .  Seagull123  Φ  16:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Refusal to seat John Fetterman
So right now in the news we're seeing the refusal to swear in John Fetterman as an elected senator. This constitutes a coup or coup attempt, no? Wondering about this maybe being a worthwhile addition to the article... Frojojo (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021
Will this be updated accurately when proven there has been fraud? 67.7.90.73 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
The references listed on the page with regard to Trump 2021 do not suggest the event was coup. Please remove the entry from the list or provide an unbiased news source (not the Guardian or New York magazine which are biased political sources and the references above in the talk page don't refer to the same 6 january event listed and are used out of context)....

To delete: 2021 On 6 January, violent supporters of United States President Donald Trump, some armed, stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop Biden's votes from being counted and him being certified as the winner, during the 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count. Lockdown and evacuation orders were given and the session was suspended. In the violent riot that followed (referred to as "the storming of the Capitol"), one pro-Trump supporter was shot and killed by United States Capitol Police and a Capitol Police officer was assaulted with a fire extinguisher and killed by the rioters. In total, 5 people were killed in the attempted coup.[80] Both the Senate and House chambers were breached, as well as the offices of several members of congress, including Nancy Pelosi's.[81] The international community immediately reacted, with world leaders and the NATO secretary-general[82]calling for calm. Paddy O&#39;Caithain (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove the Trump 2021 event as there is no reference given that it was a coup; here's one that explains it wasnt https://qz.com/1953602/is-america-experiencing-a-coup/ Paddy O&#39;Caithain (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * for now. While I do agree with the view expressed in that source, I disagree with your hand-waving dismissal of sources considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. WP:RSN is the place to go if you want to build consensus for deprecating those sources for use on Wikipedia. There are a preponderance of sources (given in a section above) that describe the event as a coup, and one source that doesn't. It would violate WP:UNDUE to remove the text based on that one source.
 * From my point of view, it's hard to describe the event (as well as Trump's prior attempts at hanging onto his office) as a "coup" on Trump's part while he is still President. I don't believe that a coup includes the prevention of a transition of leadership; rather, a coup is a forced transition of leadership. If the bulk of the reliable sources change their stance (and it looks like that may be happening), then removal of the text from this list article would be justified. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Your other mistake is that the references given are for Trump's challenges to the election; not to the events of January. You have provided NO relevant eferences  (the Guardian and New York Magazine are without doubt strongly politically biased and unashamedly so and in any event dont refer to the events of January; you may think the sources ar credible by wikipedias standards, but they dont actually refer to the events of January). you have not provided a "preponderance of sources"; you have provided actually zero. Plese delete the January 6 reference as a coup as it is not factually based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddy O'Caithain (talk • contribs) 09:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I review the references given:

1) https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/trumps-coup-attempt-isnt-over --> this is a column. or sometime called an opinon piece,  It is not a factual reference but an opinion of the writer.  The clickbait headline is the only place in the article where coup is used and the article makes no attempt to support the assertion; this is an opinion by the writer and clearly so.  this does not support inclusion in the list 2) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/infighting-attempted-coup-trump-team-erupts-chaos-giuliani/story?id=74257079 ABC News]--> this article refers to the infighting withing the trump campaign, and the "coup " mentioned describes the wrestle for power amongst the campaign staff to controlthe campaign/  this does not support the inclusion of any reference to Trump actions as a coup agaisnt the US govt. this does not support inclusion in the list 3) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/trumps-attempted-coup-dangerous/617447/ The Atlantic--> this article discuss Trumps wild ideas and states" But if a coup—or an attempted coup—is not in the cards, here’s what is." this does not support inclusion in the list 4) https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/trump-coup-sidney-powell-martial-law-michael-flynn-meltdown.html--> this article refers to a plan by Trump and only refers in the article that there is a deabte whether to clal Trumps actions a coup or not; this does not support inclusion in the list 5) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/12/donald-trump-coup-american-democracy--> this article compares Trump actions to a novel A Very Brtish Coup and quotesa Kurt Bardella twice who works explicitly as an anti-Trump adviser. His views are polticlsa and not factual--> this does not support inclusion in the list 6) https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/barr-pans-trumps-coup-schemes-in-final-press-conference.html--> This article also uses a clickbait headline inclusion of the word, coup. And then the only further reference is that Trump is "coup-fancying". It makes no assertion that Trumps actions are a coup. --> this does not support inclusion in the list

I appreciate that any one can google "Trump" and "coup" but inlcuding opinons should not be wikipedia's stance. It should try to be apolitical and should avoid inflaming. I appreciate the editors have a strong view but please try to avoid expressing it in wikipedia. there is no credible source given which provide a factual basis to call Trump's actions a coup. Only one opinion is given in all of the above references by a specifically ANTI-Trumop Lincoln project advisor.

Please remove as it is not evidenced as a coup.

<<2021 On 6 January, violent supporters of United States President Donald Trump, some armed, stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop Biden's votes from being counted and him being certified as the winner, during the 2021 United States Electoral College count. Lockdown and evacuation orders were given and the session was suspended. In the violent riot that followed (referred to as "the storming of the Capitol"), one pro-Trump supporter was shot and killed by United States Capitol Police and a Capitol Police officer was assaulted with a fire extinguisher and killed by the rioters. In total, 5 people were killed in the attempted coup.[80] Both the Senate and House chambers were breached, as well as the offices of several members of congress, including those of the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.[81] The international community immediately reacted, with world leaders and the NATO secretary-general[82]calling for calm.>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddy O'Caithain (talk • contribs) 11:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump Legal Proceedings
Wikipedia's own article on coups describes one as "an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator."

As the president's attempts to falsely contest the election have been conducted through legal and constitutional means such as through lawsuits and legal cases similiar to the Bush campaign in the 2000 Presidential Election, it cannot be legitimately referred to as a coup without using emotional language or misleading claims.

Attempts to overturn elections and to allege fraud rightly or wrongly such as in Trump's case are both widespread and frequent thoughout the world during and after election cycles, for example in the 2013 Kenyan general election or in the 2019 Mauritian election, or perhaps Congresswoman Stacey Abrams unsuccessful attempts to contest the 2018 gubnatorial election in the state of Georgia.

None of these instances are referred to as attempted coups by this article. as such the inclusion of these events seems to stick out like a red herring and fails to achieve either consistency nor accuracy. As such I argue the attempts of President Trump and his allies to overturn the election through false claims of voter fraud should be removed from this article. HalalSquad (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia's own article on coups describes one as 'an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator.'" Please see: WP:WINARS  AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is another definition from Merriam Webster 	"The violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." Trump's efforts do not fit this definition either or yet another from dictionary.com "A sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.", or from ThoughtCo or the Cambridge Dictionary OR from Encyclopedia Britannica OR Definitions.net  In fact it fits no definition of coup I have been able to find thus far, are all of these sources unreliable?

Even it did it would not excuse ignoring all that I had previously written on near-identical legal challenges that are not included on this page for failing to qualify as a coup d'etat. HalalSquad (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Very random standards in this article: Argentina 1987, 1988, 1990 insurrections were not coup attempts
So above there is a discussion about the events in the United States on january 6h. It has been decided here that it was not a coup attempt. My issue is not with that determination, but with typical double standards that I have seen for years on Wikipedia. The most blatant being the rampant bandying about of the term "most ADJ in the world", when it comes to events or cultural products of the Anglo-American sphere, which is all over such articles but always purged from events or cultural articles from non Anglo-American ones, on the basis of such claim being "unsubstantiated". The same demand is completely absent from the former. But anyways, in this particular case I request the removal of the supposed four "coup attempts" in Argentina in 1987, 1988 (2), and 1989. They were not coup attempts whatsoever. This is not only the official stance of the Argentine government, but of most historians, as well as the general population which refers to the events as rebellion and not coups. This is also the view of the Wikipedia article on the rebel soldiers themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carapintadas. Finally, just from the general smell test, the rebel soldiers only staged insurrection from their base and never actually moved upon democratic institutions, buildings or individuals. With such overwhelming evidence, the relevant references to said events in this thread are erroneous and should be edited out immediately. 119.65.203.76 (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021
In addition to a prior request, I'm providing further support to please remove the 2021 Storming of the Capitol from the list of Coup Attempts - this is not a Coup. In the House of Representatives Impeachment Resolution of Donald Trump for High Crimes and Misdemeanors document it clearly states that Donald Trump was charged with "Incitement of INSURRECTION". No where in the article does it mention a Coup. Furthermore, in is response to the Storming of the Capitol event, Joe Biden, the President Elect, referred to it as an "Insurrection".

Reference: House Impeachment Resolution https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20449065-house-impeachment-resolution-final

Reference: Joe Biden remarks of the Storming of the Capitol https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/01/06/transcript-joe-biden-capitol-chaos

REMOVE: 2021 On 6 January, violent supporters of United States President Donald Trump, some armed, stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop Biden's votes from being counted and him being certified as the winner, during the 2021 United States Electoral College count. Lockdown and evacuation orders were given and the session was suspended. In the violent riot that followed (referred to as "the storming of the Capitol"), one pro-Trump supporter was shot and killed by United States Capitol Police and a Capitol Police officer was assaulted with a fire extinguisher and killed by the rioters. In total, 5 people died in the attempted coup.[63] Both the Senate and House chambers were breached, as well as the offices of several members of congress, including those of the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.[64] The international community immediately reacted, with world leaders and the NATO secretary-general[65] calling for calm. Former President George W. Bush stated, "This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic – not our democratic republic."[66]

BluePillx (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC) BluePillx (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅, but not just for the reasons provided above. I declined the previous request above, but I accept this one. There is a clear trend in RS to move toward other terminology such as "insurrection" or "riot" rather than "coup". I'll add that although Google search results aren't great evidence, there are still about 2X the results for "capitol insurrection" more than "capitol coup". Over at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol, there is discussion about changing "storming" to "insurrection" with some participants advocating "riot" but nobody there is considering "coup". Therefore, I think it's about time to remove the entry from this article about coups. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I notice you have been restoring the section. Please see WP:BURDEN and heed it. The section is contentious. While past sources may have referred to it that way, that seems to be changing. The burden is on those who want to add material to justify its addition given the weight found in reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, stop warring. Yes, many reliable sources describe it as a coup, but apparently many more reliable sources describe it as something else. You have not met WP:BURDEN combined with WP:UNDUE to include this incident in this list. I suggest taking a survey of recent coverage in reliable sources and see what they say. Also look at the sources that called it a 'coup' and determine if they still call it that in subsequent coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not warring and haven't edited it in days, so don't accuse me of waring. It's insulting and rude. cookie monster  (2020)  755  03:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I apologize. I meant to ping in my previous comment, who has been edit-warring. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 US Election
Why isn't the 2020 US election listed? Is it because it is an ongoing attempt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.147.101.186 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By whom? Beshogur (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

....trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.147.101.186 (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible reputable source for coup attempt: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/coup-america-capitol-electoral-college-2020-election/ 2605:A601:A19C:DC00:71B0:B668:5624:72B9 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is widely considered an attempt at a self-coup.
 * Over 20,000 National Guard troops to provide security against inauguration threats in Washington (USA Today)
 * Yes, It Was a Coup Attempt. Here’s Why. (Politico)
 * What Do We Call What Happened on January 6th? (Cline Center for Advanced Research, U of IL)
 * No, it’s not a coup — It’s a failed ‘self-coup’ that will undermine US leadership and democracy worldwide (Brookings)Calmecac5 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Article protected
I have fully-protected this page due to the edit warring. Please reach a consensus on the talk page first before editing the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to add some rough data points, here are some Google search results. These aren't definitive by any means because they don't make any distinction about context, reliability, or what's recent or old. Nevertheless, here's what we find: Of those searches, not only is "coup" the least prevalent result, but it's less than 15% of the total of those four tests. Unfortunately, when you try to filter by 'last 24 hours' or 'last week', the number of hits are not displayed. The same is true for other search engines.
 * "capitol coup" - 136 million hits (as of 01/31/2021 it shows a paltry 13.5m hits)
 * clicking on the first video result, the Washington Post while comparing it to Coups of the past concluded that this event lacks critical elements of a Coup d'État or Self Coup (involvement of military), and landed on the term "Insurrection"... https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/was-the-attack-on-the-us-capitol-an-attempted-coup/2021/01/28/ffd543a7-130c-4dff-8240-3d1330877c60_video.html BluePillx (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "capitol invasion" - 217 million hits
 * "capitol insurrection" - 279 million hits
 * "capitol riot" - 372 million hits

Proponents of adding the entry back should demonstrate that "coup" predominates in reliable sources and isn't a minority viewpoint among how reliable sources describe the event. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me with that rational? Google searches? It’s one thing to use Google searches to justify not having 1/6 be titled US coup d’etat or something like that. But not calling the event a self-coup, period? That’s still 136 MILLION hits! Saturdayopen (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you fail to read my disclaimer at the beginning? And do you have any better data? Members of the US government, who were the targets of the riot, don't call it a coup. Most sources seem to call it something else. Because its inclusion in this article is contentious, the the burden is on you to provide support for inclusion based on the weight given to 'coup' in the reliable-source coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess Adam Kinzinger isn’t in Congress any more, because he clearly called it coup attempt. Saturdayopen (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Quantitative search hit justification is ridiculous. We need to see what the dozen or so experts--historians and political scientists--are calling it and take guidance from them.  Separately, anyone know when the Parler archive will be searchable? I'd love to look at what it indicates about brigading POV on Wikipedia.  AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's ridiculous. All it is is a rough indication, not conclusive. More extensive work is required to show that a preponderance (not a minority) of mainstream reliable sources currently refer to the incident as a coup. That burden has not yet been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

So are we going to re-add 1/6 or not? Saturdayopen (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I like to point out that @User:Yilku1 was the one to delete 1/6 without discussion. Saturdayopen (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps people here would like to participate in Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol, where this is also being discussed. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Buddy, stop acting like you’re neutral on this issue. You’re very clearly against calling 1/6 a coup. Saturdayopen (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am neutral. I don't particularly care one way or another. I merely responded to two edit requests above, the first time declining to remove the section, and the second time agreeing to it based on the rationale. How is that not neutral? You, however, clearly have an axe to grind in your insistence on keeping it in. And you haven't yet met the burden for including it. Wikipedia isn't the place to push your point of view, and your point of view appears to be a minority view based on how reliable sources are characterizing the event. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 February 2021
I want to add the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état


 * 2021 Myanmar coup d'état: On February 1 2021, State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyia and President Win Myint were arrested by the military of Myanmar, The military announced that power had been handed to Min Aung Hlaing, the commander and chief of the armed forces. The military announced on state run TV that they would be in control of the country for one year. Garmin21 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 US Presidential Election
Donald Trump's efforts to undermine the 2020 US presidential election and false claim to have won the election was described as an attempted coup d'état by at least seven valid sources. I feel like this should be reflected on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomancerjade (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide here? Beshogur (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Talk:2020 United States presidential election‎ and Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results for sources and discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The Trump campaigns actions are not a government. Last time I checked campaigns are not governments. Therefore there is no way that whatever is happening could be described as a coup. This language is false and hyperbolic, and I think it should be removed from this page. (Aricmfergie (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC))

Given 1) the definition Wikipedia itself uses for a coup d'état at the time of writing this, 2) That Joseph Biden has not been inaugurated, 3) the confirmed existence of dueling electors, and 4) the Trump campaign is litigating / protesting the reported election results because of alleged severe levels of fraud in key locations with the direct, circumstantial, demonstrative, and statistical evidence they have: what the Trump campaign is currently doing is NOT a coup d'etat. The contested section of the article is technically and objectively incorrect. Given 1) this allegation, 2) confirmed illegal spying on the early Trump campaign, 3) Collusion investigations / insinuations with no credible evidence, 4) impeachment proceedings on claims again without credible evidence, and 5) what the Trump campaign and supporters believe are fraudulent election reported results from systematic election + voter fraud, the Trump campaign & supporters are claiming that the coup and sedition is coming from corrupt Democrat leaders, not from them. The "safest" and most objectively sure addition to this article I believe is either a) leave it blank until after 1/20, or b) objectively state both sides' claims & reasons instead of just stating one side's claims as if it is fact. Not doing so would further tarnish Wikipedia's brand-name and further disenfranchise it as a highly biased, nonobjective, "gaslighting" resource. Given EO13848, keeping this post up on Wikipedia may also make them liable to "undesirable repercussions." --DrakeGray (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is original research. Provide reliable sources for your argument. 97.113.140.165 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This should definitely be included in the list, this was an attempted coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.207.205 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Haiti
On February 7, 2021, supporters of the opposition against incumbent Haitian president Jovenel Moise allegedly attempted a coup d'état. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperGuy1119 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 February 2021
January 6, 2021 - Donald Trump gathers tens of thousands of supporters, to storm the US Capitol to overturn the results of the 2020 election, with a plan that the Vice-President was supposed to set in motion but declined, and with the goal of keeping himself in power.

CD 2600:1010:B021:35AC:A1D5:90B9:64FA:7DB5 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See above discussion. Izno (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, it *was* on the page and was removed despite discussion. If we are looking for consensus, shouldn't the default state be where it was before the first edit that couldn't get consensus? Whether it "was" a coup attempt or it "might be" a coup attempt isn't a matter for people's political opinions. Trump is facing an impeachment trial for the coup attempt. That seems minimally sufficient that he is formally being charged by Congress for "Incitement of Insurrection": https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-effort-live-updates/2021/01/11/955631105/impeachment-resolution-cites-trumps-incitement-of-capitol-insurrection 65.96.103.55 (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The event has been added and removed to the page several times, and although you may have seen the page at a point where it was listed, there was never consensus to add it. If you haven't already, you may wish to read the discussion at Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_12. Currently, that article states that some people have described the event as an attempted coup. If there is consensus here that that's sufficient to include the event, that's fine with me, but such consensus does need to be reached before it's added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't Jan 6 qualify as an attempted coup?
The goal was to bypass the election to put someone in power. If it succeeded it would've constituted a coup, but it didn't succeed. 2601:19B:B00:BA10:6169:DAF4:B256:60EC (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

January 6th 2021
I am surprised the capital event is not mentioned as a coup attempt because Trump tried to block the election from being certified by using force — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See the above discussions on the topic. While a handful of sources have described it as an attempted coup, it is not widely described as such. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

25 July Tunisia self coup
Should it be added to the list? Tunisian president Kaïs Saïed removed the governement, suspended the national assembly, nominated alone a new government and began governing by decrees. It's already been called a (self) coup. ,, , , .--Aréat (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 US Capitol attack
Please provide a rationale grounded in policy why you keep adding this to the list. There has never been any consensus for doing so, neither in this article nor in the list of coups by country. Most reliable sources don't refer to the incident as a "coup". Therefore, neither should we. Please refer to the archived discussions before continuing this disruption. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * don't accuse me of disruption when that isn't the case. Please, no sassy-ness. cookie monster  (2020)  755  15:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What would you call repeatedly re-adding content against prior consensus? I call it like I see it, per WP:SPADE.
 * In any case, consensus can change, but I see no evidence that it has changed.
 * I'm not opposed to including it provided there are a preponderance (i.e. majority) of current reliable sources that refer to the incident that way. I haven't checked lately. A lot of sources were calling it a "coup" shortly after the incident, but the coverage evolved away from that term. I haven't checked if this situation has changed since the last time this was discussed (see conversations in /Archive 1 since January). ~Anachronist (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Really, referencing the spade essay? Ugh, please don't. The reason I readded that content is because of what I saw reflected on the main page. Don't tell me I'm trying to to against census when I thought a new consensus was made. But you just want to accuse me of going against it. Obviously I was wrong but there needs to be consistency on the main page and related pages about the terms. Don't jump to conclusions, anachroinst.  cookie monster  (2020)  755  19:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What main page are you talking about? I don't think Anachronist is being unreasonable in asking you why you were editing this page without establishing consensus, when there is an inline note asking to establish consensus before making the change. In the future, if you see such a note but you think consensus has been achieved, please at least link to the discussion in an edit summary so other people know what you're talking about. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

[|Here] is an article by a Trump Administration expert on Russia Policy who calls it a coup attempt, known as a "self coup". Academics have called it worse than a coup attempt, in that "American democracy would have ended" [|link], because if the protesters/insurrectionists had succeeded in taking Vice President Mike Pence or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hostage - which they were a few feet/minutes from doing, respectively, they would have likely issued the demand that Donald Trump remain in office despite the legally certified and adjudicated election results being that Joe Biden was duly elected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westsider (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

100 unarmed rioters occupying a capital building does not constitute a coup attempt...
Get your fake news outta here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:13f0:8110:903b:4341:124c:eb57 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which coup are you saying ought to be removed from the page? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

They were, in fact, armed with weapons such tasers, bear spray, and flagpoles that were used to beat and injure 138 police officers and likely contributed to the suicides of 4 others - the largest mass-casualty incident in the history of the DCPD or USCP. Westsider — Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

consensus looks established here, I will link to other articles in my entry NS T429 (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! Could you please point out where do you believe the consensus has been established? Do you mean somewhere in the talk page or its use by reliable sources? Pinging, who was one of the last users to respond on the issue before. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I posted the same sources in the section above as I used as a reference in my edit. Notably, the Associated Press is off-handedly referring to the event as an attempted coup.  There have been many developments since most of the comments here. NS T429 (talk)

January 6 US capitol storming is an attempted coup
It’s quite clear. Trump led a bunch of right wing conspiracy theorists like qAnon to storm the capitol. It is quite clear it’s a failed attempted coup. Trump was theoretically trying to take over the government and not to mention his call with Brad Raffenspurger, the Georgia Secretary of State. AsherDoodle1115 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed and rejected. Your opinion about it doesn't matter. We report what reliable sources say, without WP:Undue weight, and the weight isn't on the side of sources that characterized the event as a coup. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the January 6 riots were probably too much of a joke to really describe as an attempted coup. Wikidude87654321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude87654321 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Colin Powell called this an attempted overthrow of the government, also known as an attempted coup. Bob Woodward: What about the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol? Colin Powell: “It was awful. [Trump] was going in there to overturn the government.” NS T429 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The Eastman Memorandum provided a legal theory for the coup. "John Eastman [...] counseled him on how to retain power after losing the election." NS T429 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The Associated Press offhandedly refers to the event as an attempted coup.

Capitol attackers call for death of Pence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NS T429 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Your sources don't address the concern about undue weight, and you replied to an old conversation. Please continue the discussion in the section below, . ~Anachronist (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 US Capitol "coup" again
Yes, it is easy to find reliable sources that call the January 6 incident at the US capitol a "coup". Wikipedia can do that only if that is the predominant term used by reliable sources.

As a rough indication (not definitive) here's what we find among news sources (not just any sources) archived by Google: The terms "coup" and "invasion" are the least prevalent results used by news sources. The terms "riot" and "attack" are most common.
 * 2021 capitol coup: 139,000 results
 * 2021 capitol invasion: 127,000 results
 * 2021 capitol insurrection: 1,650,000 results
 * 2021 capitol riot: 6,050,000 results
 * 2021 capitol attack: 8,140,000 results

For that and other reasons, our article 2021 United States Capitol attack is not titled "coup" either. We also have Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Note that in neither article does Wikipedia refer to the event as a "coup".

So, if you want to include this event as a coup in this article, make your case, change the consensus. I'll say that my own personal preference is to call it a coup, but my own preference or yours doesn't matter one iota here. We go by sources. It is already established that the term is used in some sources. It is not established that it is used by the majority of sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * But as a French loanword, and as an uncommon word in general, "coup" will always be used less than "insurrection" or "attack" in English media, so I am not sure if this is an appropriate standard. You yourself ascribe the behavior as a "coup" but is it really necessary that this term predominate over synonymous or nearly-synonymous terms before we can use it on WP?  The situation has developed and the recent revelation of the Eastman Memorandum really changes the game here. NS T429 (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Concluding that "'coup' will always be used less than 'insurrection' or 'attack' in Englisgh media" based on linguistic arguments that they are all synonyms is original research. The point you are making does not change the fact that most sources don't call it a coup, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to do so either. Bringing up the Eastman memorandums is a non-sequitur. They change nothing, for three reasons: (a) the memorandums describe a change in a formal procedure and not inciting a riot; (b) the procedure outlined in the memorandums were not followed anyway, so the attempt was never made; and (c) the news media reporting was about the attack, not the proposed procedural change. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The quality of sources should matter more than quantity. For example, if the consensus among leading historians and political scientists is that January 6 was a coup attempt, then that is what it was. It doesn't matter if other sources refer to it as something else. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then by all means, the WP:BURDEN is on the proponents for this change to demonstrate that such a consensus exists among leading historians and political scientists. Nobody disputes that handful of quality sources can be found that call it a coup. Plenty more quality sources can be found that call it something else: riot, attack, or domestic terrorism as the FBI has officially labeled it. Quantity does matter when trying to establish what the consensus view is. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

[|Here] is a CNN Special Report by well-known U.S. reporter Jake Tapper titled "An American Coup". Westsider (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (and others) - Yes - *entirely* agree with "Westsider" above (and many others?) - time (maybe past time) to list the failed USA coup attempt of January 6, 2021 in the main listing articles (ie, "List of coups and coup attempts"; "List of coups and coup attempts by country") - fwiw - my related NYT comments are here => " https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html#permid=114817926 " - And Here => "User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 10" - seems the holdup is "WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY" - and/or - "WP:OWN" - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We aren't going to cite opinion pieces in the NYT to determine how Wikipedia should characterize the event. The citations about the Trump lawyer's memorandum are irrelevant, as previously explained. Nobody disputes that reliable sources can be found that call it a coup. And nobody has yet demonstrated that this is the consensus view among reliable sources now. Until that happens (and preferably, until our article on 2021 United States Capitol attack changes its title to reflect that consensus), this article has no business characterizing it as a coup, regardless of yours or my personal views on the matter. The holdup has nothing to do with WP:OWN or WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY, the holdup is WP:UNDUE. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Rebel takeovers being added as coups
For some reason rebel group(s) winning or not winning after a civil war like the Taliban, Séléka, and CPC are being added as coups and coup attempts. They aren't. If we added all civil war and actual coups then this list would be a mile long and not be in any way helpful.--Garmin21 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2022
Add The January 6th 2020 Capitol attacks as an attempted coup. Thegoodguyas (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. see above discussions

Cannolis (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead section and list inclusion criteria (LIST CRITERIA PART 1)
A. Per WP:SALLEAD (a guideline), this list should probably include selection criteria. The guideline says in part
 * "A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. This introductory material is especially important for lists that feature little or no other non-list prose in their article body. Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to both readers, to understand the scope, and other editors, to reduce the tendency to include trivial or off-topic entries. The lead section can also be used to explain the structure of embedded lists in the article body when no better location suggests itself."

We might say something about events described by "most historians" as coups or coup attempts, and also for events involving physical violence where a significant number of notable commenters have described the event in those terms. But I'm open to other ideas.

B. Per WP:LISTCRIT, its ok to list alleged events with inline attribution. In relevant part this guideline says
 * "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item."

So where historians disagree or for recent events lacking sufficient historian analysis, inline attribution allows us to include alleged coups.

C. Re the title, I'd be OK changing the title to List of coups and possible coups or List of coups, coup attempts, and alleged coup attempts, if we can agree on specific listing criteria. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS I'm also ok with the existing title and just explaining in the lead text that we're including failures that are so far alleged to be coup attempts, based on such characterization by multiple notable persons or sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If we do say in the lead that alleged coups and coup attempts are included in the list, that might be okay, but I strongly urge that the alleged stuff be put in a separate section. I don’t favor mixing them in with actual verified coups and coup attempts.  If we do a really thorough job of finding out about the alleged stuff, then I suspect there will be much more of that stuff than the verified stuff, I doubt any Wikipedia editors will really have time or inclination to go look for the alleged stuff in reliable sources.  It will also be difficult to figure out which of the alleged stuff falls within WP:Fringe given that none of that stuff is confirmed by reliable sources.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, makes no sense.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is less than impressive.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anythingyouwant 'Your reasoning' is even less impressive. Makofakeoh (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anythingyouwant, I see no compelling reason to split this list on the basis of event outcome and I think its more useful, especially for more recent times, to have all the events in chronological order, because that helps one have a good overall global picture of all these events and when they happened in relation to each other, regardless of outcome. You're welcome to review any one of them and decide that it was merely an alleged coup, and add inline attribution to the source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Mixing in conspiracy theories with verified coups is apples and oranges. If you want to include alleged stuff in addition to verified stuff, then I recommend following the format at List of alleged Chinese spy cases prosecuted in the United States which separately lists people accused, convicted, and exonerated.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since no one is discussing any conspiracy theories (other than JFK, which you brought up) see red herring NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with NewsAndEventsGuy's formulation, coups or cowps are commonly disputed as a description, so in such cases the opposing views should be attributed, and chronological order is better. For example, "2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état: In late January, the Burkinabé military staged a coup against Roch Marc Christian Kaboré." has a source which isn't so definite, "Burkina Faso's neighbours have condemned what they call an attempted coup in the West African state. ... On Sunday, Defence Minister Gen Barthélémy Simporé downplayed previous rumours of the president's capture, and the nature of the unrest at large. State television, meanwhile, characterised the sound of gunfire at military barracks as the actions of a small few disgruntled soldiers rather than a widespread fight or coup attempt." The dispute should be shown and attributed inline, rather than delete the item until history books come to a consensus. . . dave souza, talk 20:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Strong agreement with chronological order with inline characterization. Feoffer (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) -Please add further comments in "List Criteria Part 2" thread below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

2021 US Capitol Attack Part 3
I am sure you saw the comment in the 2021 section that reads "Please establish consensus on the talk page before adding the 6 January storming of the US Capitol". So, why do you insist on adding it to the list without establishing consensus first? Also, your argument that a charge of seditious conspiracy means that it was a coup is just your personal standard and does not matter to this list in the slightest. The only thing that matters is what most reliable sources call it. We report what reliable sources say, without WP:Undue weight, and the weight isn't on the side of sources that characterized the event as a coup. Where is the evidence that "coup" is the predominant term used by reliable sources to refer to this particular event? StellarHalo (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Even though my personal preference is to call it a coup (as I stated in the previous section), I am not seeing a policy-compliant reason to do so, and no one has advanced an argument grounded in Wikipedia policies to do so either. I note that our article about the topic 2021 United States Capitol attack hasn't been renamed to call it a coup. Until that happens, this article has no business contradicting the primary-topic article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , here are some of today's headlines:
 * January 6 hearing: Trump accused of attempted coup | BBC
 * January 6 hearing: Trump was at heart of plot that led to ‘attempted coup’ | The Guardian
 * Capitol riot panel blames Trump for 1/6 ‘attempted coup’ | AP News
 * Bennie Thompson says Jan. 6 was the 'culmination of an attempted coup' | NPR
 * I may open a RM request at the main article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that this event is happening as we speak we shouldn’t have to make readers wait the days or weeks for an arbitrary consensus here when the truth is you should honor the citations reporting on this, and then start taking a vote if you must to see if it should remain or be excluded. That Trump attempted a coup is not really being debated by the mainstream consensus in the press. Makofakeoh (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * not a single one of those sources refer to the event as an attempted coup. They are all quoting someone. The work "coup" is always part of a quotation. The sources aren't calling it that in their own voice.
 * In contrast, we are discussing characterizing the event that way in Wikipedia's narrative voice, violating policy; see WP:WIKIVOICE. As such, it violates also WP:UNDUE to call it a coup because news sources do not call it that. Plenty more call it an insurrection. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Numerous entries on the page are for "alleged coup attempts." Is an alleged coup attempt a coup attempt? It sounds as though it is only alleged, as in, some disagree with the allegation. Perhaps either all such alleged attempts should be deleted, or the 2021 American event should be listed as an alleged coup attempt, for it certainly is now alleged to be a coup attempt, by an official body at the highest level. JBriggeman (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Coup vs Self-coup
In Wiki and elsewhere I've seen discussion whether the correct word to use about Jan 6 is a "coup", short for "Coup d'état". According to some who say Trump was trying to illegally stay in power, the correct word would be "self coup". In my view, this debate is an erudite false dichotomy, because our article on "self coups" says in the first sentence that a self coups "is a form of coup d'état...". This is a bit like arguing whether the things in my fridge drawer are "Fruit" or "Apples" when both are true. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, a self-coup is a coup. I think you'd get consensus on that. A separate section for self-coups might be, on net value, an improvement for readers. Not sure... but my guess would be yes. Herostratus (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see no reason to make a separate section. I have no objection to dealing with the distinction in text, of course.  If you have a reason then a column  should be added to the companion article that lists this stuff by country in table format. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: withdrawn by nominator per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

(Withdrawn proposal pending closure) as proposer, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Former heading was "Resolving listcrit"

List of coups and coup attempts → List of coups and possible coup attempts – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) I just boldly changed the lead to try to resolve the dispute. My changes are here. If it survives, the title should be changed to include "possible" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose What is a "possible" coup attempt? How does one define a "possible coup attempt"? This just muddies the waters. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost this entire talk page is a merry go round of debate over "alleged" "debatable" "unverified" etc, and the debate has run on due to lack of list criteria. Well, the answer to your question is found in the boldy added lead text, which I'll quote so you don't have to look.  It now offers the following required list criteria (WP:LISTCRIT), which answers your question about "possible" coups as follows
 * It should be obvious, but I'll say it out loud anyway, that a "possible" coup is one in which there are sufficient RSs, measured by our P&G, that editors agree there is a "Genuine debate".  And we don't even have to argue about it, as long as we use attribution+citation as a regular practice.  Either "the other side" will add something that passes muster as RS without being FRINGE/UNDUE or they won't. For that matter, if I had an RS about the Trump business that says its NOT a coup (or self coup) that was more than just handwaving, I'd add it myself, and if anyone knows of an analysis of this sort, I'd be keen to look at it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Genuine debate" among editors sounds like an WP:OR/WP:SYNTH problem beyond what is going on now. We need the reliable sources to say what it is and is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that is not an operationally workable test. God forbid we should accuse an editor of debating dishonestly! Especially on this page!<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that is not an operationally workable test. God forbid we should accuse an editor of debating dishonestly! Especially on this page!<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support (as proposer) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The meaning of "Possible attempt" is unintelligible. This is twisting us and our readers into a hyperpretzel just to validate Jan 6 denialism. The quoted section from our "coup" article is one way to mitigate any ambiguity. There may be other ways to do that or improve the criteria for the list, but "possible coup attempt" makes no sense and I can think of half a dozen very diverse meanings for that phrase.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Question, Muboshgu above said the same as you, and I provided an explanation. Could you address the points I raised there, and explain how that LISTCRIT paragraph is so vague or unambiguous it admits the legitimate concern you've raised?  If you see a gap I do not, could we change the LISTCRIT paragraph to plug it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is twisting us and our readers into a hyperpretzel just to validate Jan 6 denialism This summation has merit. Feoffer (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose moving title to “List of coups and possible coup attempts.” I would support moving it to “List of possible coups and coup attempts.” It makes no sense to me why this page would cover coups only if they are a verified certainty, but cover attempted coups even if they are not a verified certainty.  Even if we were to move the title to the one I suggest, it would still be very useful to arrange the article contents so that the verified certain stuff is separate from the other stuff.  That’s what article sections are for.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no need for pointless qualifier—blindlynx 18:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Absolutely not.   RSes back up all the claims of coups on this page, retitling would serve only to muddy the waters.  Feoffer (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I won't mind if an uninvolved editor does a SNOW close (as proposer) but meanwhile,, can you concede the consensus here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am part of the consensus. Why would I “concede” that I am right?  Change the title or leave it the same, we need to stop conflating verified events with unverified events.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposer WITHDRAWS obvious SNOW close is appropriate, and I withdraw the proposal. Would someone please hat this as done? But we still have to agree on LISTCRIT if we are going to keep this list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New section?
A couple editors above have indicated maybe supporting the addition of a new section... "Debatable events" or whatever name, for those events in the twilight like 6/1. I think it's a service to the reader to neither leave them out entirely, nor lump them in with events that are near-universally acknowledged to have definitely been coups. Naturally, this won't serve to end arguments on our side -- whether to include the JFK thingy even in the "debatable events" etc. -- and may even increase them, who knows. But that's part of being an editor. I'm thinking here that this would be a service to the reader. What say you? Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I already created such a section but it was reverted.  We are being more informative when we separate confirmed events from mere allegations.  There has already been substantial support for a new section at the reliable sources noticeboard. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Every coup attempt is, by its very nature, a "debatable event". Characterizing the relative levels of acknowledgment is a job for inline summaries RSes -- not section headings and categories.  Feoffer (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources say that a coup attempt occurred then it’s not debatable for us. We have to accept what the reliable sources say is true.  On the other hand, if the reliable sources merely say that a coup attempt has been alleged by certain people, then we have to accept that instead.  Same thing with coups versus alleged coups.  All of the alleged stuff is much more iffy and uncertain and debatable.  Mixing alleged stuff together with other more certain stuff can only cause confusion for readers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Creation of a dedicated section for disputed entries would imply in wikivoice that the other entries are undisputed. Feoffer (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of them are undisputed. Taking 2010 Nigerien coup d'état as example, one among very many others. It was sky-is-blue a coup, and I challenge to find a single reasonable person who says otherwise to match against the reliable sources we have which says it is. Look me in the eye and tell me you have any doubt that the 2010 Nigerien coup d'état was coup. If you can't, why are arguing along that line? Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of them are undisputed. We'd need a source for that, not editors looking each other in eyes. Feoffer (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Enough already  see reason for strikeout and apology below NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS see above, which I think sums up all the recent discussion in way consistent with P&G.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you think wrong (in my opinion), and there hasn't been enough consideration of my quite fresh suggestion. -- renaming the article -- is an entirely different approach to the problem. It's not unreasonable, but it's not best IMO. Two people commented (besides the proposer) and they opposed it. About four people are talking here, and if we can work out two main options we could have a formal RfC I guess. Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (A) Re proposed Move, I'm persuaded I thought wrong
 * (B) Re your "fresh proposal", you mean finding RSs that raise a debate? I have been advocating that all along. If you meant something else, I apologize for overlooking it and would be grateful for DIFF.
 * (C) Re LISTCRIT, I'm doubling down that I think right when I say lists require LISTCRIT.  If you have objections to the LISTCRIT I quoted in the frame in the other thread, let's hear 'em.
 * (D) Just to be clear.... I agree with your comment above that most are undisputed, at least to the extent we have RSs before us, and I think we all know we're beating this to death over Jan 6's description as a coup
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My most embarrased and sincere apologies. I was so hasty the other day I assumed this thread was yet another one started by someone else who had been forumshopping.  Had I been calmer and noticed that you had stepped up to also explore  these issues I probably would have replied differently.  My bad.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh it's fine, no problem at all, it's a mistake we all make sometimes. Herostratus (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)