This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology CL‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history CL This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This has been bugging me for weeks and honestly I thought someone would change it but it still says May 6th I have looked through all the Sources and none of them state that it had taken place on May 6th in fact this source:

https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-security-services-arrest-alleged-coup-plotters-from-obscure-party

that was provided specifically states that it was announced in a June 5th statement. I ask someone please change this and thank you. IEXISTISWEAR (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should count as a coup d'etat, specifically a failed barracks coup, given that I have read most sources listed in the other Wiki on the subject (Decembrist revolt) and it is literally called a 'failed coup' in the beginning of the article. Open for discussion, would like to talk about this. -shadowm Shadowmetallic (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes. It is. Please add it. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be the first time in history that someone is accused of attempting to overthrow a government while being quoted as stating "we are the party of law and order" and publicly demanding his followers to go home. PointingOutBias (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to call that "being untruthful". Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our call -- scholars of political violence list it as a coup. But it doesn't say that Trump was in on it. Feoffer (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you see our extensive discussions last year, no scholars of political violence list it as a coup. If you look at the citations of Jan 6 in this article, none are from coup scholars. That's why nobody last year could agree to making this article into a list based on criteria from scholars of political violence. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can everyone agree to remove the justification for it being on this list and leave it for the article Qwerty786 (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to self-educate me on the 2014 events but found no entry in here. 2003:EB:6F07:CF00:6360:7712:13C0:7D29 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Revolution of Dignity, it wasn't a coup. Zaathras (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an explanation in the linked article why it is not seen as a coup, even though it is seen as one by some politicians and journalists? I found no explanation in this list, nor in the linked article. The latter is pretty large, possibly I missed it! 2003:EB:6F07:CF00:D37D:A4FC:E53C:E92C (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you found no explanation in the linked article then either failed to read it, or failed to understand it. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euromaidan is classified as a coup in both the Powell & Thyne and the Cline Center CDP datasets. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link titled 'Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset." It does not include 2014.
Your second link refers Wikipedia and the first link. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, please actually click on the P&T updated file ("Dataset 2), as it continues to be updated thru 2023. Second, your characterization of the CDP dataset is disingenuous -- their references in the sourcebook always include at least one primary source, and for Ukraine they include three (WSJ, Telegraph, and CSM). A reference to WP and a previous dataset serves as a source aggregator, as you should expect it does with every such reference. We reviewed coup datasets extensively last year -- both are respected in their field, and are about the bounds of exclusivity and inclusivity for datasets aggregating post-WW2 coups. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your references and how do they fit to WP:RS? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did check the datasets I linked, right? Look for Ukraine, 2014 (the only one listed on either dataset). Everything refers to those. If my abbreviations or something else are confusing let me know. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cline calls what happened in Ukraine a 'Popular Revolt' not a type of coup—blindlynx 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The typology and operational definitions of the coup categories are provided below." [from CDP Codebook, which is presumably what you thought you were quoting.] SamuelRiv (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we would need more robust sources than mentions in datasets to include it here....the cline codebook uses wide definition of 'coup', which makes sense given the kinda stuff this dataset is intend to be used for (i suspect the same goes for P&T) but typically the def they use for popular revolt (An irregular regime change driven by widespread popular dissatisfaction expressed through large-scale civil unrest. An event falls into this category if a large-scale popular rebellion overthrows existing leader, forces their resignations, or elites use irregular means to force leadership changes in order to conciliate the populace. It is not a popular revolt if elites overthrow incumbents they consider “soft” on dissent in order to facilitate a crackdown.) is not typically used for coups ... —blindlynx 01:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my previous comments, then look at P&T. I have addressed this. If you are interested in this topic, we went over this quite exhaustively and exhaustingly in discussions last year, which are linked in the section above. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The database/dataset doesn't fit WP:RS. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? To support what text? What are you trying to argue here? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To classify Euromaidan as a coup. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First note that I never said any text should be added or that language should be changed. All I said was that X is in Y and Z datasets. I'm not keen on adding content -- the article needs a complete rewrite per the WP:LISTCRITERIA guideline.

That said, please actually explain how academic sources are not RS for the article in its current state, because that just seems totally bizarre. We've noted in this article that the definition of 'coup' is not fixed. These are widely-cited academic datasets that set particular definitions for 'coup' and make classifications according to primary sources. Are you seriously saying they are not RS when this article does not fix its own definition for a 'coup'? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no changes are proposed then there is no need to discuss. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If none of us are keen on adding it let's leave it at that—blindlynx 19:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bolivian coup of 2019 is not listed and there is a warning about it to see the talk page which is this but you don't mention Bolivia at all

I am Bolivian lawyer and Iwant to add this. I see no reasons for not including the Bolivia coup and in the talk page, which is this, you don't even mention Bolivia. I can say it was a coup, not a riot because the president Evo was overthrown and he had to flee and after that Añez was possessed without following the requirements established in our law which of to be the senator of one of the more important parties in Bolivia, which wasn't the case of Añez.

So I want to include this coup, now tell me what do you need to do this or tell why was it rejected. Wikipedia can't re write the history, doing these things of trying to bend the history you are just lacking credibility, just that.

Maybe Wikipedia is not free to be impartial, then the case is lost and people should write and expose and investigate why wikipedia denies historical facts.

This is what I want to add, so tell me if that would be accepted if i present the bibliography of serious links.

2019 Bolivian coup d'etat: On November Jeanine Añez, a senator without the lawful requirements (according to Bolivian law) to be president assumed the presidency, impulsed by the organization CONADE, when the legal government of Evo Morales was overthrown and he (and other senators were threatened and resigned) was forced to resign after allegations of fraud that the OAS supported in their inform which was later rejected for independent studies for presenting no real proof of fraud.

The coup included the massacres of Senkata and Sacaba. The fraud allegations were completely rejected when Arce (of the same party of Morales) won the last election.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.115.138.87 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 July 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

From the article you linked (which, it is worth pointing out, actually is named 2019 Bolivian political crisis – it does not have "coup" in its name): International politicians, scholars and journalists were divided between describing the event as a coup or popular uprising. Given how disputed its status as a coup is, I think consensus would need to be achieved first for inclusion. — Czello ^(music) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your answer. I included more references that indicate it was a coup.

Besides you didn't say what is the reason for not considering it a "coup" because there were many facts that indicate it was a coup: the commander of army forces invited the president to resign, army forces were used to shut up people and kill, the new president wasn't elected in general elections, the new president didn't have all the requirements indicated in the Bolivian constitution, the legal president was forced to resign and flee to save his life, a plot to accuse falsely to have made fraud was done with the help of OAS, the US and the European Union, the massacres of Senkata and Sacaba to threat and calm people, the supress of freedom of speech, the closure of different media news and even the killing of Argentinean journalists and union leaders, etc.

So I included this with a summary at the beginning and references at the end....

This is what i added and all the references that indicated it was a coup...

THERE’s been a coup in Bolivia. There’s no other word for it. The president was ‘invited’ to step down by his military chief of staff. Police fired live rounds at demonstrators. Some former political leaders were arrested, others were forced into hiding. Media outlets were closed and journalists imprisoned for ‘sedition’. Parliamentarians were prevented from entering the national assembly. A senator declared herself president, and was caught on camera smiling as a soldier helped her put on the sash of office. Generals posed for the camera, too, eyes hidden behind dark glasses.

The mainstream media has carefully avoided the term ‘coup’ in describing the overthrow of President Evo Morales. The first female dictator in South America’s history, Jeanine Áñez, downplayed concerns: ‘A coup d’état is when there are soldiers in the street,’ she said in an interview on 12 November, ignoring the fact that the day before she had asked the army to join the police in ‘restoring order’ in La Paz . Soldiers were patrolling the capital’s streets as she was speaking.

• 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat: On November Jeanine Añez, a senator without the lawful requirements (according to Bolivian law) to be president assumed the presidency, impulsed by the organization CONADE, when the legal government of Evo Morales was overthrown and he (and other senators were threatened and resigned) was forced to resign after allegations of fraud that the OAS supported in their inform which was later rejected for independent studies for presenting no real proof of fraud.

There's no doubt you can find sources that list it as a coup - but that's never been the issue. The point is that its status as a coup is disputed. See the parent article. — Czello ^(music) 07:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've just noticed you're engaging in block evasion; striking the above comment. — Czello ^(music) 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]