Talk:List of coups and coup attempts since 2010

Honduras and Paraguay

What's the standard for considering something a coup? Last June's removal of Paraguay's President Lugo has been widely characterized as a coup or a "technical coup". (I'm not really sure what is meant by "technical coup".)[1][2][3][4][5] And last December's ousting of four Honduran supreme court justices has also been widely referred to as a "technical coup".[6] [7] [8] [9][10] -- Irn (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Central African Republic

The recent rebel takeover of the CAR has been described by some as a coup, considering many of the rebel commanders were former military officers. Charles Essie (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• This article focuses on "guardian coups", or coups that are led by a part of the state establishment (often, the military). The recent event in Central African Republic was a rebellion - another type of coup, known as a "breakthrough coup". It is listed on the separate article List of revolutions and rebellions which this page links to. Farolif (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this article necessary?

Dear wikipedians, I'm confused why the coups (successful or attempted) since 2010 have their own separate article, instead of being integrated in the existing List of coups d'état and coup attempts. It confuses the reader, creates additional maintenance, and breaks the continuity of having a single, cohesive list. IMHO, the info in this article should be merged with the existing "List of coups d'état and coup attempts" in the corresponding subsection; and after that this (then redundant) article should be deleted.
Unless there are sound reasons not to, I'll do that in the next week or so. Regards, DPdH (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mon cher Wikipedian, I can quite sympathise with your reasons to merge, but IMO this is the most detailed list of coups by decade we have, and integrating it into the main article (table et al) will make it feel more slanted toward recent events, and make a long page much longer. It's a quirk that all these events occurred within the age of mature Wikipedia, thus the referencing and length is amazing. I'd certainly like to see more coups by decade stand alone lists, though. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine coup

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. Therefore, I propose to add to the table the following entry:

Event	Date	Type	Country	Coup leader	Head of state/government	Notes
2014 Ukrainian coup d'état	February 22	Coup	Ukraine	Leader of biggest opposition party Arseniy Yatsenyuk	President Viktor Yanukovych	Parliamentary coup: the President, having fled the capital following violent protests, was unconstitutionally removed by parliament without a procedure of impeachment. Parliament also restored the 2004 constitution without presidential promulgation, so that Chairman of Parliament Turchynov – instead of Prime Minister Arbuzov – became acting President and Yatsenyuk was appointed Prime Minister.

Nykterinos (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

References

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. Also although I fully support the table and belive the only edits should be more sources. Endukiejunta 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's too a reliable source, which briefly makes the same point as Jay Ulfelder. Nykterinos (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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) 19:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

Whether western sources call it a coup is relevant to 'common name' - whether the article should be called a coup. It is not relevant to whether the revolution actually is a coup, which it is, as it was unconstitutional and thus illegal. DylanLacey (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ulfelder, Powell and Thyne are political scientists who professionally study coups all over the world, and their articles have been published in books and peer-reviewed journals. According to WP:RS, “self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications”. Powell and Thyne’s coups database, which now includes Ukraine, has been presented on the Journal of Peace Research [11]. Anyway, read their pieces – they’re well-argued, and explain what a coup is. Determining whether a change in government is a coup is a complex matter of political science and constitutional law, and, according to WP:RS, “for information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports”. Nykterinos (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally original research. Please, check WP:OR. News articles could barely qualify for credible sources no matter whether they are from RT or not. Also, Arbuzov was never the Prime Minister, he was however an acting prime minister which is not the same. As Yanukovych left he never told anybody where he was going. His own party has officially disowned him as he ran away. Oleksandr Yefremov the leader of parliamentary faction of the Party of Regions recorded a speech where he acknowledged that Yanukovych left everyone without a clue. Calling Arseniy Yatsenyuk a coup leader, infringes on personal attack of living person and such claim could be addressed in court. Is that what Wikipedia wants? I do not think so. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to go back to analysing the assumption this thread appears to have been started on: reliable sources actually using nomenclature such as 'coup' or resembling WP:JUNTA JUNTA outside of the blogosphere by notables such as Jonathan Powell (an Assistant Professor at the University of Miami = someone writing his MA with a view to becoming a career academic, as opposed to an academic by career). I was (and, due to my Honorary status, still am) an academic by career. Op-eds by wannabe's who pay for their own site (I've got two of my own dedicated to humble concerns which I would kick out of Wikipedia if ever someone wanted to use them as RS) are a dime a dozen. This is Wikipedia, not a springboard for opportunists. A big thumbs down to this entire proposal which is based on WP:BOLLOCKS.

I do apologise for coming off as being curt regarding this issue, but I've really had enough of WP:POV-pushing with regards to everything from the current events in Syria to whether Kim Kardashian's buttock implants are OTT or a political statement re-empowering women whose voluptuous form has been artificially quashed by Western advertising standards in the interests of big business. Demonstrate that 'coup' is the mainstream usage in RS or stop trying to resurrect a position long since dismissed as being a bone of contention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, Nykterinos, it seems that you have no knowledge of politics in Ukraine. The first thing what happened before Yanukovych was removed from power was reinstatement of the 2004 constitutional amendments which in event of no president, presidential duties are performed by the parliamentary speaker. The reinstatement of the 2004 constitutional amendments was one of critical points of negotiation between Yanukovych and the opposition. But do you know? For you it is all the same. You simply follow the news from country that attacked Ukraine and completely ignoring alternative opinion. I suggest you to stay away from subject that you are not familiar with. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn’t want to upset you, just to point out that reliable scholarly sources do call Yanukovych’s removal from power a “coup”, simply because it meets the commonly used criteria. By the way, these same sources don’t oppose the coup (they’re not “Russian propaganda”), but say it could in the end favour Ukraine’s democratization. You can call Mr Powell a Mr-Nobody, but his and Thyne’s coup dataset has been published on an authoritative journal, and there are not many other comprehensive datasets around. As for the details: we can leave the “coup leader” box blank if the coup was carried out by the whole Parliament (I indicated Yatsenyuk just because he was the leader of the biggest opposition party). As I wrote, Yanukovych didn’t sign the law restoring the 2004 constitution, even though the 21 February peace deal required it. The law restoring the 2004 constitution was subsequently signed by Turchynov. Nykterinos (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. If this "Ukraine coup" really did take place, then why does the country that called it a coup in the first place (Russia) continues to keep bi-lateral relations and communications between the democratically elected heads of government of Ukraine? You can label a dog with any word you want, but in the end, it's still a dog. The whole wide world recognizes the Ukrainian government, and its democratic traditions, especially major international organizations such as the IMF, NATO, and the UN. It is not a coup. Calling it a coup is completely OR. § DDima 00:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia and the whole world recognized the Turchynov-Yatsenyuk government because it was the de facto government, as it almost always happens after a coup (see the recent cases of Egypt and Thailand, for example, whose coup-installed governments were quickly recognized, too). But these questions are irrelevant to the problem of including Ukraine in the table or not: we should, if there are RS which call it a coup. The most reliable sources are scholarly ones, and I have found some. If you find scholars, especially coup experts, who argue that Yanukovych’s removal from power was legal under Ukrainian constitutional law and therefore was not a parliamentary coup, I will be happy to read their articles. I’m deeply interested in these issues, not just in Ukraine, and I’ve been wondering for a long time if what happened in Ukraine can be described as a coup – which, as Ulfelder writes, is first of all an analytical, not a moral, question. Nykterinos (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You've entirely missed the point, Nykterinos... many experts also argue that it's a moral point, and do so supported by RS. The fact that you've found a few references that would support your assertion is precisely that: you've found some sources that support your assertion (AKA cherry picking). The assertion is, however, very much WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Who/what on earth are "... coup experts..."?!!! I've never encountered any form of academic studies in 'coup expertise'. Political analysis has never claimed to have any 'objective' arena from which to decode a political position. Context is everything: your WP:OR is nothing short of posturing. Ulfelder is welcome to write whatever he believes (read as WP:POV), but it has absolutely nothing to do with how we use secondary resources for encyclopaedic titles or article content. You seem to have overlooked the fact that, should Yanukovych leave the Russian Federation, he will stand trial and be impeached for a list of charges larger than your imagination. If you're deluded enough to believe that there's some form of parallel between Yanukovych and Snowden, you're so far off the mark that you're not even in this universe, and are living in a utopian paradise where the RF is somehow synonymous with goodness, niceness, truth and justice as opposed to sheerly unabashed opportunism.

As regards "... coup-installed governments...", I'm trying to figure out the parallel between (for example) Pinochet's puppet-government and what took place in Ukraine. Analysis of events would indicated that events in Ukraine were the antithesis of popular governments being overthrown via military intervention, and the instalment of a repressive US-backed military state. If it comes to that form of Hegelian algorithm being superimposed, the shoe fits the current 'governance' of Donbass.

When all is said and done, however, we are not here to engage in using an article talk page as a forum for personal opinions. Legitimate de facto governments have been "installed" during interim periods after the ousting of a corrupt government before. Where is your reliably sourced evidence for an interim government (quickly followed by elections deemed to be accepted almost universally as being open, transparent and legitimate) to have overstepped the ousting of a corrupt legislative head - renounced by his own party as being corrupt - as being a 'coup'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the one engaged in OR is you. I didn’t cite many sources, true, but you didn’t cite any. Who are the “many experts” who “argue that it's a moral point, and do so supported by RS”? “Coup experts” are political scientists specializing in the study of coups, like the ones who compile coups databases and study the definition, context and consequences of coups (by the way, if you think that calling Yanukovych’s removal from power a coup is such an absurd delusional fantasy and you have good arguments apart from your moral indignation, you can leave a message on Powell’s website, so that his dataset will cross Ukraine out). Jay Ulfelder is frequently cited in mainstream newspapers and magazines as a coup expert: see here, here and here. His classification of Ukraine as a coup is cited here. But it seems you’ve completely misunderstood what I wrote and what calling a change in government a “coup” means (who talked of “military intervention”, “repressive US-backed military state”…?): you continue using the “Russian propaganda” line, when the sources I cited are western and pro-western, and even outright call the coup “just” (not that it matters here, that’s just a personal opinion which has no place on WP). Finally, I’m not proposing to change the 2014 Ukrainian revolution article’s title to “Ukrainian coup”, since I think the coup took place within the revolution, like the 2011 Egyptian coup which took place within the 2011 Egyptian revolution. Nykterinos (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

SLAVA UKRAINA. I love and am proud of my Ukrainian roots. I do find it very offensive that you think I was only there to serve that purpose. I've been following talk pages and debates on other websites like that for days. Also you completely neglected the policy of assume good faith. Also you are being mean and attacking and making me (a new user feel uncomfortable). Also why are you § DDima so keen on attacking Endukiejunta? He has a point and evidence of all sorts. Western, Russian, independent, and scholarly. Also why did you make Aleksandr Grigoryev get into this? You purposefully went to his talk page and told him to help you attack Endukiejunta literally on his page. Saying that he was pushing a pro-Russian POV. So you went and got someone who literally has a anti-Russian (he has an anti-Putin poster on his user page) to help you. Seems like you are pushing a point with bias. SLAVA UKRAINA.ILoveUkrainianSvoboda (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My question is, that what in consensus?Most people here are agreeing, why can't we change this?Endukiejunta 18:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endukiejunta (talk • contribs)

Consensus for what, Endukiejunta? Wikipedia is WP:NOTVOTE. Policy overrides personal preferences, and the policy at the heart of this is WP:NPOV. We go by what reliable sources tell us, and reliable sources to not refer to it as being a coup. I really don't care how much original research is bandied about to prove that X=Y, nor that it is used for other cases deemed to be parallel to events in Ukraine. Until the majority of sources refer to it as a coup, it is not referred to as being a coup. Read through the sources presented above again. Pulling 'coup' out of that is clearly WP:CHERRY and WP:SYNTH. Which part of this do you fail to understand? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Defining a coup

I made this point a few years back, but given the recent developments in Venezuela, I think it needs to be re-examined. Comparing the removal of President Lugo in Paraguay in 2012, the removal of four members of the Honduran Supreme Court in 2013, and the removal of Brazilian President Dilma last year with the Venezuelan Supreme Court's dissolving of the legislature this week, I don't see what sets Venezuela apart. In three of the four cases, you have one branch of government using constitutional means to usurp the power of another branch of government in a highly contentious anti-democratic move. And in the case of Honduras, you have two branches conspiring against the third in an extra-constitutional move. Venezuela has been gradually becoming increasingly authoritarian, and it is in the midst of a terrible economic crisis, so it fits the narrative better, plus the press in the US especially loves to demonize Venezuela. But none of that seems to make what just happened more of a coup than what happened in Paraguay in 2012, Honduras in 2013, or Brazil in 2016. Indeed if we're looking at the overall context, it should be noted that as a result of the coup against the Honduran Supreme Court, President Hernández is now up for re-election – the mere possibility of which resulted in the coup against Zelaya in 2009. -- Irn (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Color

I don't get the colorcode used on this page. Is there any reason we're coloring everything in these blues shades? If using color, wouldn't it be better to at least have it useful, for example by have the lighter shade used for attempts, and the darker one for coup which were successful? --Aréat (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Aréat: I agree with your Idea. A coup d'état should be darker or have an other colour. What do you think about red colour for a coup and green for an attempt? CPA-5 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  Seem potentially confusing to me, as green is usually for success. Imo it would be best to simply have attempts as uncolored, and successful coup highlighted with a color. Also, there's no need to have the whole line colored, just one panel each time would be enough. --Aréat (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hm, which kinda colour do you think should the list use? Also, I think the panel "type", can be used for the colour. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• I've got nothing about either shade of blue currently in use. --Aréat (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hm, I think we can use your idea, of lighter shade for attempts and dark one for the coups can indeed be usefull. Because I think they are usefull, not confusing and meaningfull. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Good. I went ahead with the color change. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Bolivia

For anyone interested in adding Bolivia, please consult the 2019 Bolivian political crisis talk page. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Left/right division?

I was looking for information when it was last time military ousted rightwing goverment/dictator but didn't find any details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.171.81 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Storming of U.S. Capitol

For some reason this appears under Oceania instead of North America. I would appreciate it if someone could place this in the correct section.Calmecac5 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

It was basically a attempted coup. A leader rallied his supporters to try and tack over the main governing body

For others like me who were curious why this hasn't been added, there was an RfC over at Template talk:Coup d'état#RFC: Should the events of January 2021 be considered an "attempted coup" in the United States? which closed as 'no consensus' last April. Maybe should be asked again after whatever news articles come out today. See what the current consensus is by reliable sources now that a year has passed. 2620:0:E50:301D:7198:E920:5488:1AC7 (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also a discussion on Talk:List of coups and coup attempts#2021 US Capitol "coup" again. Basically, while reliable news sources can be found that call it a coup, there doesn't seem to be a consensus among the sources, at this time.

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. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].--Aréat (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Lacks Bolivia and Paraguay

Bolivia was basically a Coup with a military junta announcing the newpresident. Likewisein Paraguay Lugo was deposed.Thislist seemsbiasedin describingsome"small scale mutinies" as "coup by some media" (Papua New Guinea) but not stuff which are prosecuted even legally as such right now.- --181.166.162.36 (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about using phrase "attempted coup"

A Consensus Discussion about adding the phrase "attempted coup" is at the following => "Talk:List of coups and coup attempts#Concerns about "attempted coup"" - Thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 20:31, 10 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) 04:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

No consensus on 2021 America coup

No consensus have been reached on the many discussion pages about whether this is counted as a coup or not (though I think it is obvious if it is or not), therefore it should not be listed until a proper consensus is reached. 103.244.228.42 (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources that say the event was not a coup:

• It Wasn’t Strictly a Coup Attempt. But It’s Not Over, Either. Source: The New York Times
• Was the U.S. Capitol riot really a coup? Here’s why definitions matter. Source: The Washington Post
• This Was No Coup. But It Comes Far Too Close Source: Bloomberg News
• No, What Happened At the U.S. Capitol Was Not a "Coup" Source: Montana Daily Gazette
• Q&A: Cuckoo, but not a coup Source: The Boston Globe
• Local expert says riot at U.S. Capitol not considered a coup Source: WKTV
• It wasn’t a coup, but Capitol riot resembled events seen in fragile democracies Source: Times of Israel
• Why This Wasn’t a Coup Source: Foreign Policy

49.188.220.81 (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)