Talk:2022 German coup d'état plot

Flag

There have been repeated attempts to insert the flag of the German Empire into the infobox. This is not supported by sourcing and is predicated on a misconception that was propagated by an unsourced claim made in the Reichsbürger movement article. If you can find a source for the flag's direct association with the coup or the Patriotic Union, please add it! It would probably be even worthy of having in the article's body. However, that does not currently exist in sourcing. If you want the imperial flag for a screenshot, go ahead and use the preview feature and just don't save the edit or use the number of previous versions that retain the erroneous inclusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That is strange. The German Empire ceased to exist after World War I, over 100 years prior to 2022. It makes no sense, unless the plotters of the coup attempt used that flag to represent themselves. But I agree, there would need to be sources to document that this is the flag that the coup plotters use. I suppose news articles or even photographs or videos of them using that flag to represent that cause might work but there would have to be some evidence provided that this is the flag they use in 2022. —yetisyny (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the article is being targeted by trolls, so I wouldn't be surprised this is part of their chaos strategy. I wouldn't take it too seriously. I've tried to remove some of their additions, but I don't have enough software skills to resolve that situation. Hopefully somebody else can take this up? Guillermo Aravna (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2022

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: Moved. There is a strong consensus that the proposed title is superior to the current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Germany coup d'état plot → 2022 German coup d'état plot – Consistency with other coup d'état articles. See such high-profile cases as 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt and 2014 Thai coup d'état: it is standard practice to use the demonym and not the name of the country. (I thought for a page this visible I should gain consensus before moving). Heavy Water (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I based myself on things like 2022 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état attempt and some others, but I see now that most indeed use the demonym. I don't know if we have any MOS guidance on this, if there is no such guidance (or if it supports the demonym), I support this move (as page creator, for what it's worth). Fram (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I went digging and found WP:NCE, which doesn't explicitly state a preference for either the demonym or the name of the country, but the one comparable example listed is 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. Heavy Water (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Weak neutral Seems both reasonable and inconsequential. The attributive noun and adjective forms are both cromulent. It matters not which form is used. --Jayron32 15:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Many things we do are (seemingly) inconsequential. This at least has more weight to it as a high-profile article than that edit war over Star Wars capitalization. Heavy Water (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Star Trek, not Star Wars. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm always confusing StarTalk and Star Trek, so... Heavy Water (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Strong evidence that adjectival demonyms are preferred. Scrolling to the box at the bottom of this article, even more examples of this consistency are present. Good catch, Fram. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Be consistent. There are lots of other articles starting '2022 German ...', but only one other '2022 Germany ..' (which is about cricket).-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The attempted coup was directed against the state of Germany as a whole. A ″German coup d'état plot″ could also be directed against a lower target like a ″Bundesland″ authority or something else like that. So this lemma is exactly correct, like ″2022 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état attempt″. Greetings - Thylacin (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'd wager that using Guinea-Bissau attributively in that article title is mostly down to its demonym being uncommon in most people's lexicons. (Do you, off the top of your head, know what it is? I had to check.) ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with what Thylacin is saying in spirit, but I think you're right in that using the demonym probably makes more sense and is what people would search for. Also, who would think that the Guinea-Bissau demonym is *swapped* from the country name? So odd. MrAureliusR_Talk! 04:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Use demonyms for consistency. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. "German" is the proper descriptor, not "Germany". KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 12:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have an opinion here, but to other voters: please base your comment on Wikipedia policies, and not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  If you're referring to people of both opinions bringing up things like 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, 2014 Thai coup d'état, 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, and 2022 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état attempt: that's because when policy does not exist or is ambiguous (as in this situation), we draw on precedent for consistency. Heavy Water (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  If you're gonna call people out, I'm going to point you to WP:SSE, which you would've found if you'd read a little bit further. Since this is not a deletion request, this seems to be where we should look. David12345 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm confused - you were replying to @PhotographyEdits, but you linked to the same thing they linked to. Were you intending to reply to me? Heavy Water (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  There must be something wrong with the redirect on that shortcut, it is supposed to lead to Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments#Precedent in usage, which is linked from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. David12345 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Heavy Water @David12345 I think they replied to me because I replied to other people in this thread, but anyway: sorry for my harsh comment and I think that you have a point about consistency when there is no policy. But I would be surprised if there is none for this kind of thing, to be honest. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @David12345 I see, thanks for clearing that up. @PhotographyEdits Your comment was fine, I was just explaining my reasoning. It does seem that MOS doesn't address this, yeah. Heavy Water (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @PhotographyEdits and Heavy Water: In the absence of any other policy applying, it seems like WP:CONSISTENT would apply. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Blaylockjam10 Yes, I agree. I voted for support. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment What about 2022 coup d'état plot in Germany? RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It could work. I think it's introducing unnecessary confusion though, as if the plot was only in Germany, and not of Germany. Heavy Water (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support from the grammatical conventions mentioned above. Maximilian775 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support Moving it to be consistent with adjective form used elsewhere makes sense, but I think here it is ultimately inconsequential and the article would not be substantively affected if the move did not take place. aismallard (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support as 'German' is the correct descriptor. Asrieltheoracle (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support for making it consistent with the titles of similar articles. JerryM4798 (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support after realizing there is no policy for this, I support this proposal based on consistency with other articles like this one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. However, I have seen people preemptively edit the article like the move already happened, which is annoying. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support as this would be consistent with names of similar articles and be better wording. “German” as an adjective as opposed to “Germany” as a noun, prior to the other noun “coup d'état”, would make more sense than the current title, as adjectives describe nouns in proper English, and stringing together a series of nouns is not as good grammatically (although still sometimes done). Hopefully you can get this done soon, because it seems like an obvious improvement with almost unanimous support from fellow Wikipedians. —yetisyny (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, it has nearly met the 1-week threshold to be closed, although only an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, can do so. Heavy Water (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support: It makes more sense to call it "German" than "Germany" as it is better grammar/wording. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support This would be better per WP:CONSISTENT. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

support i mean, it's just 1 letter but germany sounds better 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per several editors above. 151.177.56.148 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2022 (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.

Mentioning of the Peruvian coup attempt

Several editors (including myself) have been reverting repeatedly over whether to mention the Peruvian coup incident in the See Also links just because they became news on the same day. I am on the removers' side, as I do not see any tangible connections or parallels between the two incidents. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Works for me Agreed. While it is tempting to point out the nearly simultaneous events, that would belong more in a time list article like 2022, where things are connected by date. As there (almost definitely) was no international collaboration between the two groups of plotters, that would be like connecting the world population reaching 8 billion, the G20 Summit, and the Polish-Ukrainian missile incident. Heavy Water (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant to clarify that those last three happened on the same day. Heavy Water (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. While the example Heavy Water provides is an accurate representation of what a See also isn't for (coincident events with no association), two foiled coups on the same day is an uncommon enough occurrence to warrant inclusion. Does it belong in the body? Almost certainly not (unless any parallels between the two events are regularly discussed in reliable sourcing). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Occurring on the same day is not by itself sufficient for mention. For example, the Bulgarian and Bosnian general elections this year happened on the same day but their articles do not mention each other. And back on topic, the Peru and Germany incidents are coincident events with no association; they had completely different goals, completely different motivations, no reliably known shared participants or backers, and entirely different proposed coup mechanisms. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And completely different ideologies, one was instigated by a communist president, the other by a far-right monarchist group. Heavy Water (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Except that the "communist" president was removed. Thinker78 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised people are adding that event to the article, as the two incidents are entirely unrelated. I'm very opposed to adding even a token mention of the incident as it may give a false sense of connection between the two, which is not substantiated in any RS. aismallard (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Bismarck Room

@Sakiv: Myself and another editor have reverted your insertion of an article about a Bismarck Room that was renamed. Nothing in the article cited suggests an association with the coup, though there may be nuance lost in translation. Could you just give the quote associated with the coup if there is one in this article? ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that this act is linked to what happened a few days ago. This movement yearns for the defunct German Empire and Bismarck was one of its most prominent faces.--Sakiv (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is pure speculation. There is nothing in the source that points to that conclusion. I am a German native speaker. Der Spiegel is a reputable source. If you need a translator, try deepl.com. Please cite a reputable source (including a sentence confirming your claim as a note or comment). Thank you. -- ElLutzo (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed the source and added a template. -- ElLutzo (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that. We could find a source, maybe, that ties the coup to the room. But if we don't find one over the next couple days, we should remove the passage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. I am not able to find any source for it. -- ElLutzo (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations!--Sakiv (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Baerbock → Faeser

Nancy Faeser is the German interior minister, not Annalena Baerbock. See: "Lead figures" in the Infobox. 91.54.11.82 (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

The existing German wikipedia page is unlinked but located at: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotische_Union Ronnie Soak (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 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. RealAspects (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That German wikipedia article is for the group, not the coup d'état plot. There is currently no wikipedia article for this coup d'état plot in the German wikipedia. The group is linked in the introduction of this wikipedia article via Template:ill. --ElLutzo (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been resolved by German wikipedia and wikidata in some way I don't fully understand. If you speak German, here is the discussion: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia#Bitte_um_Soforthilfe_für_Interwikilinks --77.23.54.32 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022 (2)

The following source mentions eplicitly „about 5000 policewomen and policemen, 2000 more than previously mentioned“ involved.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/italien-liefert-bei-reichsbuerger-razzia-verhafteten-deutschen-aus-a-6506a060-fc3a-4e7d-ad90-234ed40e4051 Ronnie Soak (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 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. RealAspects (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Done: [1] -- ElLutzo (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Are these references used for the change doubted, Pbritti (talk · contribs)?

Do you need more resources or more reliable resources than Der Spiegel (online) and Süddeutsche Zeitung? -- ElLutzo (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@ElLutzo: No, my apologies; it's that I still prefer that we trend towards the number supported by the majority of sources. However, once I saw this discussion I realized there was enough disagreement with my stance to stop me from undoing your edit without first justifying it first on the talk page. If you stand by the sources, I'm cool with the edits. Thanks for checking in. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your understanding. Yes, the sources immediately after the capture of the group members were 3,000 police officers. But sources in general are like "Over 3,000". In the German article for the group: de:Patriotische Union, the revised number of 5,000 was accepted. But the only source for that seems to be still Der Spiegel. I gave a range of the number of police officers in the infobox with NYT for the first number and Spiegel for the second. I still do not know how to give the different numbers in the text. "Over 3,000 and up to 5,000 [according to Spiegel]"? ElLutzo (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"Reichsbürger coup d'état attempt" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Reichsbürger coup d'état attempt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § Reichsbürger coup d'état attempt until a consensus is reached. Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)