Talk:List of coups and coup attempts by country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments

This list was a product of the deletion dispute at List of dictators. It lists people fitting a verifiable criterion that overlaps with the subjective idea of a dictator. Gazpacho 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a page for "coup attempts"?

No there is not. KazakhPol 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the incomplete List of coups d'état and coup attempts, which lists both successful and unsuccessful coup attempts. However, as I noted, it is rather incomplete and also heavily biased toward recent coup attempts. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That page has not existed for several days. It had no sources and many likely violations of WP:BLP. KazakhPol 20:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol, it is BACK (please see List of coups d'état and coup attempts). By the way, thank you Gazpacho for the background information (provided 17 August 2006) concerning the ties between this list and a list of dictators. As best I understand it, not all "coups d'etats" involve dictators . . . but on this list being a dictator appears to help. Mkpumphrey 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Theres an error in the list;

1. Mexico in 1911 by Francisco I. Madero against Porfirio Díaz (and Francisco León de la Barra)

The "coup" of Francisco Madero against Porfirio Díaz was not a coup at all, it was a Revolution. Díaz resigned to his office.

Iran in 2009 can hardly be considered a coup since Ahmedinejad was the sitting president. The presidential election result may be questionable but it's hardly a coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.119.228 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

---

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.80.232 (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is JFK on the list? I'am removing it.

"Glorious Revolution" (Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Scotland, 1688)

I suspect the above revolution by the parliament of England, which saw James II* deposed in favour of William III* and Mary II* would qualify for this list. (* KoE regnal numbers)

Petecollier (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch Army supported by its German and Huguenot allies invaded England, and overthrew the English King. This is a coup d'etat? So if the USSR had invaded the USA during the Cold War and made Nikita Khrushchev president of the USA , would this also have been a coup d'etat?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That analogy doesn't quite hold. The overthrow was facilitated by a limited number of essentially unopposed Dutch and allied troops (commanded by William), but was instigated by the English parliament. The installed protestant monarch, Mary, who replaced the catholic, James, was a member of the British royal family and in the line of succession. As such she had a legitimate claim to the throne, it just wasn't as strong as James'. Trying to come up with a similar cold-war-era US-based scenario is streching things more than a little, but I'd suggest it would be more akin to seeing Kennedy impeached by the US congress with Nixon installed in his place, supported by a few companies of Canadian infantry in case anyone objected to the Presidential order of succession being disregarded.

Petecollier (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was, in fact a cold-war-era coup in the United States. Kennedy was killed and Johnson took the Presidency. There is evidence thet he did more than know about the plot, however it was not organised by him. The security state, CIA, NSA, etc. effectively took over executive power of the federal government and installed Johnson as puppet, and to some degree every president since has been their puppet. Whatever you believe, there was a coup november 22, 1962. Sources are plentiful e.g. Plausible Denial & Rush To Judgment, both by Mark Lane, Deep Politics And The Death of JFK by Peter Dale Scott.

And here's me thinking he was killed on the orders of 12-foot, shape-shifting lizards from outer space, a la David Icke... P M C 22:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Petecollier, it was a coup d'etat. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire

I think the Ivorian crisis was far more complex than what is portrayed here. Can the Second Ivorian Civil War be considered as a coup with the support of French officiers? I think it is clearly a non-neutral point of view. Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ukranian Coup

I do apologize I was not aware that RT was unreliable. I have only been on here for a week or so. Still getting used to it. However I have found another source. I did however find a source that I think may be reliable. I was the one who did the original edit. However in my source, Nicolai N. Petro who is an academic specializing in Russian Affairs, currently Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island, in the United States called it a coup. Saying ": Yes, it’s pretty much a classical coup, because under the current constitution the president may be—may resign or be impeached, but only after the case is reviewed by the Constitutional Court and then voted by a three-fourth majority of the Parliament. And then, either case, either the prime minister or the speaker of the Parliament must become the president. Instead, that’s not what happened at all. There was an extraordinary session of Parliament, after—it was held after most members were told there would be no session and many had left town. And then, under the chairmanship of the radical party, Svoboda, this rump Parliament declared that the president had self-removed himself from the presidency." I hope this source is a reliable one. Thank you for continuing my notion. It was through good intention, thank you Nykterinos. I think we should do this edit:*February 22, 2014: Arseniy Yatsenyuk overthrows Viktor Yanukovych Also on the talk page of coups since 2010 a fellow editor: Nykterinos, said "Recently, there was an edit war about adding the 22 February 2014 removal of Ukrainian president Yanukovych from power as a coup. While the source provided in favour of the inclusion was unreliable (Russia Today, which in this case is not a third-party source), there are scholarly sources which describe the Ukrainian revolution as a coup: the coups database compiled by Jonathan Powell and Clayton Thyne lists it as a coup; Jay Ulfelder, who worked for the PITF, explains here why it meets the criteria for a coup, albeit a parliamentary (not a military) one, and Jonathan Powell does it here. The basic argument is that Yanukovich’s removal from power was unconstitutional, because he didn’t resign, nor he was impeached, as required by articles 108-111 of both 2010 and 2004 constitution. Besides, Prime Minister Arbuzov, and not Chairman of Parliament Turchynov, should have suceeded him according to article 112 of the 2010 constitution, which was the constitution in force since the law restoring the 2004 constitution wasn’t signed by the President." using these sources :

Now is there a consensus?

I agree with this idea and proposal fully. I hope that others will make the right choice and reach consensus. The user who started this section really outlined and supported his view with reliable evidence. SLAVA UKRAINA! ILoveUkrainianSvoboda (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Seems very interesting that a "new user" with an apparent "pro-Ukrainian" username is registered SOLELY for the effort of making a statement on this talk page in favor of Endukiejunta's efforts to paint the 2014 Ukrainian revolution as a coup. His sources provided are highly biased and are not credible (i.e. RussiaToday, Wordpress). No reliable source (CNN, New York Times, BBC, DW, etc.) refers to the change in government in Ukraine as a coup. Wikipedia must maintain neutrality and reliability at all times, however, when users add information such as that relating to the so-called "Ukraine coup," it significantly lowers the credibility of the entire Wikipedia project. § DDima 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that "no reliable source" refers to the change in government as a coup is flatly wrong, and it is not difficult to find counterexamples even from the media outlets you cite. For instance, CNN journalist Fareed Zakaria has occasionally called Yanukovych's ouster a coup [1]. The CBC has also occasionally described the events as a coup [2]. These are the journalists' own descriptions, not reports of how the events are viewed by pro-Yanukovych sources. Besides this, a simple web search of CNN, BBC, and NYT news shows scores of articles which report on and discuss the allegation that the events were a "coup". Even when the writers use this term only in reported speech, it's clear that the claim is being taken seriously enough to report, analyze, and/or refute. We need not endorse the "coup" characterization in order to neutrally report it here as well; we just need to be careful to note who claims the events were a coup and who contests this claim. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. See the longer discussion at Talk:List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010#Ukraine coup. Nykterinos (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

... And WP:RS still don't describe it as a 'coup'. I've removed the listing as WP:POV. Not only were there less than a handful of individual journalists describing it as such at the outset of the events when no-one was sure of what was actually happening, reliable secondary sources most certainly do not refer to it as a coup. On top of this, there was absolutely no attribution, much less any form of WP:INTEXT attribution. Added to that, applying your own definitions to any one of the coups listed here is WP:OR and will be treated as such. It is also a list, not a comprehensive discourse as to whether the events listed on this page were considered by some to be a coup, whereas other sources disagreed. No RS for it being the mainstream view: no entry. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As Nykterinos makes clear in that talk page he linked to, coup scholars call it a coup. It's therefore dishonest of you to say that "WP:RS still don't describe it as a 'coup'" when Thyne and Powell's database, Jay Ulfelder and Jonathan Powell talk about it as a coup. That coup scholars refer to it as a coup is sufficient to warrant inclusion on this wiki page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that discussion. It wasn't me who added the removal of Yanukovych back – I have given up editing this and related pages long ago, because they are not based on a rigorous and consistent definition of "coup", and in this state are useless: there's no point in arguing if something was a coup if the list lacks a definition of coup. Even scholarly sources differ in their definition of coup, so one particular definition should be chosen to compile a meaningful list. However, long ago I also added external links to two scholarly datasets of coups, which do the same work as this list better than Wikipedia can do. One of these two datasets (published in the Journal of Peace Research) includes the removal of Yanukovych according to its definition of coup, whereas the other considers it not a coup, but a case of "coerced resignation of executive due to poor performance/loss of authority". Anyone interested can find all useful info in those datasets. Nykterinos (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fully aware of the existing databases and research on coups. If there are discrepancies between Thyne/Powell and others (Center for Systemic Peace has one, right?), it might be smart to create a formatted list where any coup mentioned in a database gets a mention but the list would also show with an "X" which databases consider it a coup. I'm not good enough at editing Wikipedia to do that but someone who knows his/her stuff should do something along those lines. That might also make it possible to delete all the redundant "list of coups by country", "by year" etc. and bring them all into one page called "list of coup d'etat attempts" where users could easily sort the coups by "year", "country" and see which databases consider it a coup. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, even though it's in part superfluous, since one can directly consult those datasets. As far as I know, there are at least three available datasets: Powell-Thyne (1950-present), Center for Systemic Peace (1946-2015, updated yearly), and Coup d'etat Data Project (1945-2005). Since they all start from after WWII, they can’t entirely replace the existing lists in Wikipedia, but they may be used to compile a more useful and verifiable list since 1945. Nykterinos (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans and Nykterinos: As you've noted yourselves, this 'list' is superfluous without any consistent definitions. You also seem to forget that Wikipedia has relevant categories per article for that form of indexing, and that WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Read WP:IINFO. Note, also, per WP:SALLEAD, "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." You've both just described precisely why this is an exercise in WP:BEANS that is constantly going to attract edit warring, WP:POVPUSH, etc. The only way in which this can work is if all of the databases are described in the lead as being the foundation for the list, and if each of the coups appears on every list (no asterisked inclusions: any debates on 'coup' or 'not coup' is content for the relevant articles, not for an exhaustive list like this.

As for your 3 datasets, you've failed to take into account that they are all WP:PRIMARY content and, as such, use of these datasets as the basis for the definition of what is deemed to be a 'coup' and what is not is a breech of WP:NOR (i.e., you do not use raw data to create content). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Citing a database isn't original research ("According to Thyne/Powell, X is a coup", "According to the World Bank, Country Y has X GDP"). The coup databases aren't primary sources (do you know what a primary source is?). Are those your only substantive complaints against the use of the coup databases? What about Ulfelder and Powell's descriptions of Ukraine 2014 as a coup? Both of them coup scholars, both of them reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You’re right: the 3 datasets are not primary sources at all – they are scholarship about coups and each of them includes an explicit definition of "coup" and a list, so using them would not entail any OR at all. On the contrary, using their content in Wikipedia would be almost a copy-paste work, and that's why it would be partly superfluous. On the other hand, there’s no way to compile this list other than relying on that sort of datasets, if the list has to be based on explicit and consistent definitions rather than random sources for each entry (the latter being WP:SYNTH). Nykterinos (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging DDima on the question of the efficacy of retaining such a list, or whether it is one to be considered for AfD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thailand Coup

Thailand coup 13 not 21 please do not Rebellions combined. Link [3] Parintar (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Parintar: Please note that this is a list of coups d'état and attempted coups. Numbers 1, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 are failed coups. Number 6 is qualified as being "more a purge or internal coup" by Prime Minister Phibul in order get rid of political enemies and rivals. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding for you. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This are really coup?

There are some examples that I doubt that should be considered coups:

Afghanistan

• April 28, 1992: Sibghatullah Mojaddedi overthrows Abdul Rahim Hatef
• September 27, 1996: Mohammed Omar overthrows Burhanuddin Rabbani
• November 13, 2001: The Northern Alliance overthrows Mohammed Omar

Civil wars and coups are different things

Congo-Kinshasa

• May 16, 1997: Laurent-Désiré Kabila overthrows Mobutu Sese Seko

Again, civil wars and coups are different things

Cuba

• January 1, 1959: 26th of July Movement overthrows Fulgencio Batista

Again, civil wars and coups are different things

Ethiopia

• May 21, 1991: Meles Zenawi and the EPRDF overthrow Mengistu Haile Mariam

Again, civil wars and coups are different things

France

• 1794: The National Convention votes to execute Maximilien Robespierre.

I think that the deposition and execution of Robespierre was legal (at least, in the concept of "legality" that was possible in the middle of the French Revolution and the Terror)

Haiti

• December 12, 1956: Joseph Nemours Pierre-Louis overthrows Paul Eugène Magloire

This was really a coup by Pierre-Louis, or Magloire simply resigned in the middle of popular protests?

Liberia

• September 9, 1990: Prince Johnson overthrows President Samuel K. Doe

Again, this was the result of a long civil war

Mexico

• 1915 by Venustiano Carranza and others against Victoriano Huerta

The same about civil wars and coups

Russia

• October 14, 1964: Leonid Brezhnev overthrows Nikita Khrushchev

The deposition of Khrushchev by the Central Committee was according the rules of the Party

Rwanda

• April 6, 1994: Juvénal Habyarimana was assassinated when his plane was shot down

This was really a coup? After all, it was not an illegal change of government

• July 4, 1994: Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) overthrow Théoneste Bagosora (see Rwandan Civil War)

The same about civil wars and coups

Tunisia

• Jan 14, 2011: the Tunisian Revolution overthrows Zine El Abidine Ben Ali

The same objection as in the Haitian example: this was really a coup, or the President simply resigned (and leave the country) in the middle of popular protests?

Uganda

• April 11, 1979: Tanzania People's Defence Force and Uganda National Liberation Army overthrow Idi Amin
• January 26, 1986: Yoweri Museveni and the National Resistance Army overthrow Tito Okello Lutwa

The same about civil wars and coups (and, in the case of 1979, was also a foreign invasion)

--MiguelMadeira (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@MiguelMadeira: Ultimately, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource with content reflecting what reliable sources say on any subject matter. If there are no reliable sources calling these 'coups', then they should be removed. I would, however, not recommend simply removing all of these instances in one fell swoop, but would tag them as requiring reliable sources. If, after some time has been allowed for editors to find sources, such sources cannot be found, then they should most certainly be removed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete the Egypt section

None of the examples are really coups. They are all revolutions. Zakawer (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Egyptian Revolution of 1952 is widely considered a coup, try google search. Can provide reliable sources if you can't find any. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Lol, dude. I think you gotta do something. Will do Option B on WP:PONY, even if it leads to my ass getting kicked. Zakawer (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

requesting full protection and deletion of the Egypt section

This is the only way edit wars can end. Restore my edits then full-protect the page. Zakawer (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Woah, you guys are now edit warring this for more than three months. How many sources have you Zakawer and the other side provided for their opinion? I want to understand if one of you is interested in constructive work here. --87.123.58.46 (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Romanian revolution of 1989

I've removed the 1989 overthrow of Ceaușescu as WP:FRINGE. See Romania's bloody revolution (BBC) as an example of the coup theory being WP:JUNTA JUNTA and an exercise in WP:Counting forks: which appears to be what, in general, this entire list is acting as in the first instance. Yes, there was a failed coup in 1984, but the revolution was not a coup.

If you have some a handful of scholars and experts who like to engage in making a living out of parsing details in order to redefine historical event and engaging in revisionism, such content is fine for the relevant article if it is WP:DUE, but tossing it into a list like this as if it were fact is not acceptable for a tertiary resource - and that is what Wikipedia is, not a hodgepodge of WP:SYNTH conflated to create alternative scenarios (known as WP:OR. If two or three sources have discussed an event as being a coup as opposed to a revolution, but reliable secondary mainstream sources are consistent in referring to the event as a revolution, it is not automatically a candidate for a list of coups. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857

I've tagged the Indian Rebellion as being dubious. While the East India Company was 'governing' in tandem with the Indian elite, I'm unaware of any reliable sources calling the Indian Rebellion of 1857 a coup. Mutiny and even 'revolution' is used, but not coup or attempted coup. Including it in this list is a contravention of WP:NOR unless sources describing it as such can be found. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I am finding no usage of the term "coup", plentiful use of the term "revolution" can be supported, but there is an obvious difference in terminology here. In fact Indian Historians favour the discription India's First War of Independence (term), although it is disputed and is a lively topic of debate. I would say give it a week for any RS to be dug up, and if not, remove in a week or so. Irondome (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

1997 in Turkey

On 24 February 2011 an ambiguous editor added 1997 coup in Turkey to the list. Strictly speaking that was not a coup. On 28 February 1997 an official report signed by the all those concerned including the Prime minister in the National Security Council (Turkey) stressed on the anti seculiar activities. The government resigned on 30 June 1997 four months later than the report . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa: While I believe the editor to have added it in good faith, there appears to be consensus on the actual article that it wasn't, strictly speaking, a coup. Considering that the WP:TITLE of the list is unambiguous, I'd say that it should be removed, so I'm going bold and removing it. If other editors disagree, they're welcome to discuss why it should be included. If this were a list of events that have been referred to as being 'sort of' coups by some sources, there'd be an argument for retaining it... but it isn't. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Not all breaks of constitutional order are coups

I put "citation needed" after many entries - civil wars, peasants rebwllions, foreign invasions, etc. are not "coups"--MiguelMadeira (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)