Talk:Coup d'état/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gabriel Naudé

Gabriel Naudé (d. 1653) wrote a book called "Considérations politiques sur les coups d'état." Is it relevant? Should it be mentioned here, at least in the Etymology section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.9.203.65 (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Problematic phrasing - 'Democratization' section

"Research suggests that coups promoting democratization in staunchly authoritarian regimes have become less likely to end democracy over time"

Surely a coup "promoting democratization" would never "end democracy" at all, or at least hopefully not. Was the intended phrasing perhaps "end dictatorship"?

I've given the text a good going-over in my mammoth edit, but there remain several other problematic passages. Harfarhs (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus needed for the list of leaders achieve power by coup

I have made some adjustment to the list by adding Tajikistan with citation. I do wish to seek consensus here for the standard of which leader to be included in such list. Given that Civil War counted for some leaders (e.g. Denis Sassou Nguesso of Congo, 1997-98 Congo Civil War), is the list then include any extralegal inauguration of any leader? Given the imminent possibility of inauguration of Venezuela's Guaido, Sudan's opposition, and soon Algeria, I wish to have a standard of definition on this category before the imminent possibility of another edit war in this article like that which occurred for Ukraine 2014. WeifengYang (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Power grab" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Power grab. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2020

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: No consensus (non-admin closure). Sceptre (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Coup d'état → Coup – WP:COMMONNAME, commonly used in news article titles, dictionaries (e.g. Oxford/Cambridge) treat this as the primary term. 17jiangz1 (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request. OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, think this requires a further discussion, and would certainly be controversial if moved by a technical request. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Note also that the nom has made a series of related undiscused moves (List of coups d'état and coup attempts by country, List of coups d'état and coup attempts) that should probably be reverted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Copied from WP:RM/TR. [1] OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Britannica still has it at Coup d'état, and we also have Coup de grâce and Coup de main. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  In the same vein, Webster has "coup d'état" as the primary term, while the 2016 AP stylebook says "[t]he word coup usually is sufficient". So it seems that tertiary sources are split on the matter. Coup de grâce and Coup de main are likely not in contention as primary topics for the title "Coup".--17jiangz1 (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. I think both terms are still used, but "Coup" seems to be more common now. And since "Coup" already redirects here, there should be no issues with moving it. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Coup" sounds like a contraction of the term "Coup d'état". The article lead already acknowledges the shorter form. Cambalachero (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it is a shortened form, in the same way that United States is a shortened from of United States of America and United Kingdom is a shortened form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The article title should be the most common name used in English, not the official or long-form name. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME ~ Amkgp ✉ 05:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is more true to the original French. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Can you please point me to the section of the English Wikipedia's article naming policy that says we should remain more true to the original French when naming an article? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's just a non-rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ambiguous. In colloquial speech, when a swift surprise victory of any kind is called a "coup", it is short for coup de main. If a leader were forced out by members of his own party acting within the law, that too would be a coup de main, not a coup d'état. Srnec (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  But "coup" already redirects here and "coup" is the most common name for this topic, so based on our policies, the article should be movied. If there were truly cause for confusion, then "coup" should be redirecting to a disambiguation page. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  I concur that a dab page at "Coup" would be good. -2pou (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, the 2nd dictionary meaning of ": a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act //She pulled off quite a coup when she snagged the usually reclusive author for an interview."[2] is in wide use for coup.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  And do we have an article for this definition of "coup"? This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Sources far more often say simply "coup" than "coup d'etat". Seems fairly open and shut, policy-wise, to me. This topic is already primary topic over coup de main and coup de grace, given that the coup redirect already points here. Also, other dictionary definitions aren't really relevant per WP:NOTDICT, unless that topic also has an encyclopedia article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. The other common meaning, "coup" for brilliant success, is more a dictionary topic than an encyclopaedia topic. CMD (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - it's more concise and common. What other encyclopedic topic is called a "coup"? Red Slash 18:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Srnec as ambiguous. Maybe y'all are smarter than me, but personally, I have found this thoroughly confusing regarding the differences of the terms (or at least coup d'état and coup de main). After reading these, I honestly am still not sure I have the difference correct. My current understanding is that if a swift government overthrow takes place the coup de main would be the actual carrying out of the attack, whereas the coup d'état is the overall process to include the planning going in, the coup de main itself, and the follow-on re-establishment of a governing system. Question mark?
  I support Rreagan007's point that moving the dab page to Coup over the redirect might help resolve this, though some additional description might help as well. Having to read separate articles to know which one you are looking for is a disservice to the readers. -2pou (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I would want to see evidence regarding whether "Coup de main" is actually the same term as the English use of the term "coup" being "a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act". I'm not convinced that they're interchangeable or even that one is derived from the other. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think they are. I initially assumed the "sudden brilliant act" meaning was derived from coup d'etat, but from the dictionary entries I read it seems that it's an independent term, directly taken from the French word coup, meaning blow. I would Oppose changing the primary topic here, because there is no confusion. Coup de main is an obscure topic, as can be seen in the page views, and I don't think any of the other encyclopedic topics are commonly called simply "coup". The sudden brilliant act concept is a WP:DICDEF and wouldn't have aj encyclopedia article.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  This is my current understanding as well. As such, the redirect should not be altered even if this nomination fails. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The term coup is merely a shorthand for the term coup d'etat, but while it may frequently mean to be that, it does not hide the fact that coup may refer to something else. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 08:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The fact that it may refer to something else does not necessarily mean we must use the longer name.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  But those other topics need not necessarily be marginalised. I'd rather prefer that the current dab page be moved to the coup redirect. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 08:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – to the extent the word has any other meanings, they are minor and mostly non-encyclopedic; to the extent the word occurs in other phrases that are not shorted to this word alone, such as coup de grâce and "counting coup", it's irrelevant). Arguments like "The term coup is merely a shorthand for the term coup d'etat" do not track; by that reasoning, we would have to move thousands upon thousands of articles to longer names (e.g. UNICEF would be impermissible as an article title, as would Microsoft without its corporate designation, etc., etc., etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Ilya Somin opinion

Sourced opinion by political scientist and a law professor to in some special circumstances coups can be justified in his words with the source provided:

"There should be a strong presumption against forcibly removing a democratic regime. But that presumption might be overcome if the government in question poses a grave threat to human rights, or is likely to destroy democracy itself by shutting down future political competition".

Sounds as some justification but it is both about democracy and human rights and there is section with that name so I restored it under that section.109.93.122.58 (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Edits to lead

Looks like a popular article so thought I'd explain my edit. I did four things:

1. Shortened the long parenthetical on pronunciation and synonyms, because I think the purpose of the lead is to quickly answer "what is a coup d'etat?" not "how do I pronounce coup d'etat and what about the plural form?"
2. Similarly, moved synonyms to the end (not sure why they are there if they aren't redirects though?).
3. Trimmed citations for first paragraph of Etymology and rephrased to match them.
4. I rephrased to "coup d'etat or coup" and rephrased all instances as "coup" in lead because cited dictionaries (Oxford, Merriam Webster, and Cambridge) treat the two terms synonymously, and most of the article body already uses "coup."

Someone can re-add the plural info if they think it's necessary, but I think under etymology would be better rather than in the lead.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Coups do not require violence to be considered coups

The lead should not contain often with use of violence due to the fact that coups and coup attempts do not always happen via violence. Violence may be used but is not required to be considered a coup, therefore it is unnecessary in the lead. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That's why it says often, because it is often, but not always done via violence. However, it happens via violence often enough that it is necessary in the lede. - Aoidh (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Role of foreign influence only very tangentially hinted at.

I came looking for the term for a coup which is largely or wholly a foreign operation. So many recent and historical examples flood my mind I feel examples are unnecessary. This a sort of "medium-soft" to "medium-hard" power projection which can be so effective, particularly against a much smaller nation, that it is in the front pocket of all significant powers (although its reputation has become rather tarnished of late).

So simply put, would someone with actual expertise in the study of coups d'etats, which is most of those reading these words, please email me the answer to my question concerning terminology, and also expand the article to include what may in fact be the very most common sort of coup, these days? Thank you all kindly for your good work. crawkn@gmail.com

Crawkn (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC about coups and coup attempts

An RFC has started related to this matter. See Talk:List of coups and coup attempts#RFC: How should we deal with alleged coups and alleged coup attempts?. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Three main factors that lead to military takeovers in Africa

Should be related to Africa 41.223.73.255 (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)