Talk:Coup d'état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Talk Page[edit]

Maidan 2014 Ukraine need to put in the List, paid by U.S. 5 Billion with trained Groups

Talk Page organization[edit]

  • I hope this does not disturb anybody, but following this talk page is almost impossible. If you don't mind I organized the discussion pages in sections, so anybody can follow what has been happening. PLEASE, if you intend to discuss for a particular case, especially current cases like Iran, Honduras, or whatever new country that has political problems, which in the end it is just a matter if the country is to be listed or not, and that's all.. then DO SO IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTION "Particular cases", and try not to mess with the content of the article itself. Finally, if you intend to list a given country, please before starting an edit war, check if it really is a coup, a revolution, a riot, or whatever... check the definitions, make sure it fits! Ok, I hope this helps in something... Alchaemist (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection[edit]

This page regularly gets vandalized. In fact it happens so often that every time you come back after a few days, either several people were added and reverted from the list, or the article was simply trashed. Whenever anybody doesn't likes a president, he simply lists him in the list of incumbent leaders. IMHO the article should be protected so anonymous IPs no longer can trash the article. For example, I have just reverted an edit which trashed part of the article, the guy simply deleted part of a section, and replaced it with trash in a wikipedia link. This went unnoticed for 5 days... What do you think? should the article be semiprotected? Regards! --Alchaemist (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussions about definition, history and real content[edit]

Proposed edit to opening paragraph[edit]

The second sentence is incomprehensible and thoroughly confusing: "A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces." All kinds of style and grammatical issues with this one. Vague pronouns, too long, inconsistent terminology, etc.. I propose it get axed. I'd get rid of it myself but I can't. It's terrible.

Mdekruijf (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular Use of the Term[edit]

The term "coup" has been used, both recently and in the past, for situations that don't seem to fit our current definition ("the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder"). The situations in Honduras and Iran, the tendency of the turkish military to 're-secularize' the government, etc. non-military and non-government usage abounds as well - do a google search and you can find many examples. We need to define the term to CLEARLY include those situations which are "coups d'etat" and maybe add a section about popular use of the term.--RhoOphuichi (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder" is very critical definition to that word "coup". Leave it and do not change it just because of some recent events. It is never justified to extend edit war of another article to here just because a new definition is more favorable to another edit war.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
My apology. I should not say you a part of another edit war. That portion of my words are plainly wrong. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It is clear said that use of military is not a defining feature of the word coup. There is no need of use of force, although it is often used.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The end of the English monarchy, 1688[edit]

'...the Glorious Revolution was the last coup d’état in England, effected to establish parliamentary democracy, whereby William of Orange deposed King James II, the last Roman Catholic English monarch, in 1688.

Parliamentary "democracy"!!?? "Parliamentary sovereignty" surely?Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In the so-called Glorious Revolution, an Allied (Dutch, Hanoverian, other German states, and French exiles) Army was landed in England by the Dutch Navy. The English Army, led by the quisling John Churchill, did not fight the invaders. The English navy had been unable to prevent the invasion because it was in port at crucial time because lack of intelligence and the wind being in the wrong direction when it did learn that the Dutch were about to invade. It was a foreign invasion.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Further References Links[edit]

Feel free to submit this further reading link to the main page.

Jeeptires (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciamiento: I need to edit this article[edit]

{{editprotected}} Why was this article fully protected? It seems that only IPs are causing trouble. Why not temporarily blocking anon users only? It seems totally exaggerated to completely protect this article.

My edit:


The Pronunciamento (Pronouncement) is the Spanish and Hispano American analogue of coup d’état; golpe de estado (coup d’état) is the usual, Spanish phrase.


The Pronunciamento ("pronouncement") is an euphemistic Spanish-language analogue of coup d’état; golpe de estado ("coup d’état") is the usual, Spanish phrase.

I hope this is not controversial. Thank you.

? CieloEstrellado 09:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection as you suggested. Please make the edit yourself. (However I suggest that "euphemistic" is a somewhat subjective word, and so maybe not suitable.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right. I'd have to source that. ? CieloEstrellado 05:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Types of coup d’état[edit]

  • This section in the article, certainly a very important one, seems to be messy, repeating itself and mixing the different criteria which can be used to classify a coup. Is anybody willing to help in cleaning it a bit, or giving it a better organization? Alchaemist (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

History: Latest years[edit]

Recently, the following paragraph was deleted by MarritzN on November 1st:

In the latest years, with the decline of coups d’état, another political phenomenon got more usual, mass protesters deposing unpopular leaders, such as in Iran (1979), Yugoslavia (2000), Argentina (2001), The Philippines in 1986 and 2001, Bolivia (2003), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004–2005), Ecuador (2005), and Bolivia (2005). Popular uprisings forced the incumbent leader’s resignation, to ensure politico-economic stability, so that an unknown, uncontroversial interim leader can govern until formal elections are held; these changes of government are not coups d’état, because they are not military actions, and they involve big masses of protesters both things contradicting the definition, thus they are considered revolutions. In the Argentine case of 2001, the crisis was resolved constitutionally; like-wise, the Iranian Revolution of 1979, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, because it sprang from popular opposition to the Shah of Iran.

He stated: deleting a paragraph that, by its own admission, had nothing to do with coups d'etat.

While may seem true, I think that something should be said about these cases, because confusion as to WHAT A COUP IS is usually created by the press naming "coup" almost anything. Perhaps a smaller paragraph with less examples? Ideas here? Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Other ways to change a government[edit]

It does make sense to me to include a section that contrasts between coups d'etat and popular uprisings, especially in light of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the growing revolutionary movements elsewhere. So, I would say include that or something like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napzilla (talkcontribs) 20:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


The word "unconstitutional" in the definition presents a problem when a country's constitutional tribunal (usually, the Supreme Court) is involved in the coup. Since most constitutions assign final word on constitutionality to some such tribunal, such a tribunal can always rule anything constitutional. If I were made Supreme Dictator of some democracy tomorrow by a supreme court ruling which also included the text "this ruling is ultra-mega-constitutional, no backsies a million", then by this definition that would not be a coup. I am of course thinking of such cases as Honduras 2009 (or, more debatably, USA 2000-2001) in which the Supreme Court was in fact involved.

On the other hand, we need some qualifier there, or every impeachment would be a coup. Something like "legally irregular" would work better IMO.

I'd like to know where the definition comes from. I'd put a {{fact}} tag on the word constitutional, but that would be ugly and disruptive on the page itself. So here: consider it done: "A coup d'état (English pronunciation: /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, (plural: coups d'état) or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional [citation needed] deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military." Homunq (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the first person here to think along these lines: [1] Homunq (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Almost always is precisely the same constitution the one that defines the procedures, grounds and limits on which a Supreme Court can act over a President. As for the Supreme Court being involved, all previous cases I know of where the Supreme Court supported dictatorships (i.e. Argentina with almost all its coups), the constitution was actually abolished/suspended (BTW in an unconstitutional manner of course). The case of Honduras is really curious because there is actually an article of the constitution involved (when you read it is really funny), but it is not my intention to trigger another edit war in this "definitions" section. IMHO "legally irregular" by itself does not fit because in most cases they are simply illegal, and "legally irregular" is even more broad and confuse. Finally, yes, it is true, that there should be some reference material backing the definition, although I doubt that a single crystal clear definition, agreed all over the world has been ever written about this subject. BTW perhaps the UN has something? resolutions, articles even the website? just my 2 cents. --Alchaemist (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Incumbent leaders"[edit]

Does it matter if a person hasn't been continuously in power since a previous coup? For example, Desi Bouterse was dictator of Suriname until 1988, and has recently been elected President in his own right. Farolif (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the section should best be used for current regimes that were established by a coup d'etat. That would exclude Bouterse's current tenure. OTOH, there are probably so few leaders in his situation, that it wouldn't expand the list unduly to include them. SamEV (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree that the section should best be used for current regimes that were established by a coup d'etat.
  • If someone become leader through a coup, the 'democratic' election may be fixed. So it seems reasonable to keep them listed here.
  • If the heading were changed to "incumbent regimes", it would have to include regimes that took power through a coup, and where the leader has changed through succession, so it would be a much longer list.
--Toddy1 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It is sometimes hard for outsiders to know whether an election is free and fair. For example, in Ukraine the current opposition (which was in power until a year ago) claims that any election that it loses was unfair - and as they have the ear of the foreign correspondents in Kiev, this rubbish is related as fact to the credulous west.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Update current leaders (Gadaffi, Libya)?"[edit]

Is it too soon to strike Gadaffi as leader of Libya, and perhaps replace it with the new leaders?

He's Dead so yeah we can say that the NTC pulled a coup — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

-- Kalleguld (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Area of the World"[edit]

An unidentified user added the "Area of the World" column to the "Current leaders" section in September of last year. I don't know what it adds to the article other than to show how many are in Africa, which can be countered by the fact that there are more countries in Africa than any other continent. I'm going to delete it. If someone adds it back in, please give an explanation. Farolif (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


coups d'état is mentioned, but coup d'états isn't. The former, correctly, describes multiple occurrences but the latter describes a single occurrence across multiple states. Also possible is coups d'états - multiple occurrences across multiple states. Eg Operation Condor#Antecedents 23:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Particular cases proposed as coups[edit]

Most edit wars in this article and discussions, are actually related to listing or not listing whoever, in the "Incumbent leaders..." list. If you are about to list someone, it would be polite if you first discuss it here, just create a new subsection, with the affected country in the title (I am assuming that as you are reading this, you are not a vandal). Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

IRAN - Coup of 12 June?[edit]

I invite all people who are talking about Iran's Coup to participate in developing Coup of 12 June article. and then put it in Coup d'état article. thanks. --Samic130 (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It seems that the Coup of 12 June article has been significantly improved. However, it merits to be improved more by all Iranians and the people who care about the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi horn (talkcontribs) 04:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism on 13 June, and copy protection added[edit]

The following is copied from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Coup d'état

Temporary full protection dispute, Several editors are claiming that the recent re-election of the Iranian regime represent a coup d'etat. Although the fairness of the elections can be disputed, the re-election doesn't represent a coup d'etat. NorwegianBlue talk 20:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that should have been semi-protection --NorwegianBlue talk 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Fully protected Full protection was correct. Please feel free to contact me for unprotection when the dispute has settled or to post an unprotection request here. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that full protection is appropriate. The disruptive edits were from non-logged in users. The claim that an election represents a coup is absurd, and need not be discussed any more than people typing rude words in random places in articles. Indeed when I saw the protection template had been added, at first I assumed it was more vandalism. The right course of action is to block non-logged in editors from editing. Incidentally protecting a version that includes the vandalism seems pretty much like vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that the recent president election in Iran can be counted as a coup. The ex-president Mahmoud ahmadinejad simply cheated in poll turnout and using his power in government reassures his sit in the government. He ordered his runner reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi to be house arrested and he arrested all his campagn ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

13 June as a coup is a controversial assertion without supporting evidence (at least at the moment) and events are unfolding rapidly. The burden of proof should be on those making the assertion. Shouldn't the protection be applied to a version without the assertion while the arguments are being made? Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

13June: Whether the assertion is true or not, it's irrelevant as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the Supreme Leader of Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

13June: I agree with those who've said that Wikipedia can't go with it as a coup until more information is known. At the very least, Ayatollah Khameni should be listed as the inciter of the coup, not Ahmadinejad. There simply is no evidence at the moment that Ahmadinejad was in any way involved, but Khameni has codified it. (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

13June: The Iranian election was stolen and the whole process is nothing short of very well-planned coup. But I do agree that Khamanei himself should be listed as the inciter of the coup.

Iran: Election 13 June 2009[edit]

I've removed the mention of the 13 June Iranian election, per the above discussion; it should only be added back if we have strong sources for it, which those editors who feel it should be included can develop on the talk page. If consensus develops to a add well-sourced mention of it, then it can be added back.--ragesoss (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that what happend at 13 June 2009, after ahmadinejad defeat in iran presidental election was a coup de tat. Because they resisted remaining in power despite the fact that people voted to the other reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh1985im (talkcontribs) 01:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened in Iran on June 13th was a coup de tat by all the measures. The votes were cooked. The free press was supressed right after the election, and the anti riot police were ready from the day before (they called it Eghtedar Maneuver) for the upcoming unrest. Also massive arrests of the political acticist from main reformist parties is reported from Iran, including Iran participation Party members and its director general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamylo (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened on 13 June 2009 is absolutely a coup de tat. I've some reasons for it. Now in Iran, all of the Liberal Leaders (Such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi) are arrested (or home-arrested). Two days before the elections the SMS service came down and till now (when I'm writing this paragraph), it's not corrected yet. Also, Iran's security police (Called SEPAAH) is fighting with people. After Ahmadi Nejad elected, he wants to kill Hashemi Rafsanjani as "Big Robber", and Rafsanjani resigns from all of his political statements. I've many reasons from strong sources for it, but unfortunately all of them are in Persian. Mamylo (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to my last talk, I've found some English pages that said about June 13 2009, they're listed here: [1] [2] [3]
These two pages, specially first, completely describe the events happening in Iran Mamylo (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I would suggest that it's too early to definitely list this as a coup, simply because the mainstream media hasn't gone much further than reporting that some are calling it a coup. The best thing at this point would probably be to spend our efforts documenting the coup claims and the reports of election irregularities and fraud at Iranian presidential election, 2009. Once the dust settles, we can figure out what to do here.--ragesoss (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

we Iranian people believe closing all websites belong to reformists, shooting down sms service, iran melitary's statement (Sepah Pasdaran) before countig votes and putting many police forces in the streets before counting votes, also arresting many reformists leaders and suprme leader statement a day after the announcing fake votes are obvious signs of coup d'état. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mohsen Sazegara, the Iranian political activist believes that this is a coup. [4] I agree with him. It has all signs of a coup. They are depositing the elected president, and backing the action by using military force and crushing the demonstrators. (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know. The people responsible for the elections announced the result just like they do in Europe and America. The party that lost the elections then cried foul. Opposition supporters (including exiles) then start a campaign (such as the one on this site) to say the results were not the true results. None of these claims are reliable. They might be true, and they might not. I don't suppose that even the people making them know whether they are true or not. Claiming that the other side won by election fraud happens here too. After the 2000 US election campaign supporters of the defeated candidate did it (I saw a book about it in a bookshop in Dnepropetrovsk). Was the US election in 2000 a coup too? Seems absurd.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

These events have major differences with 2000 US election. There was no gun shots in 2000 and no newspaper blocked. In Iran, soon after elections all the community and news websites are blocked (e. g. Facebook, Twitter and ...) and mobile phones has no network connectivity. Streets of Tehran is a place for riots and gunshots (See this: [5]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamylo (talkcontribs) 12:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

All the events you describe could also be interpreted as putting down a attempted coup (or revolution depending on your view). There are two fundamental questions:
  1. was the election fraudulent (please provide reliable sources)
  2. does a fraudulent election constitute a coup

Ucanlookitup (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add some simple statistical notes about Iran election and I hope I can answer the first question mentioned above regarding the fraudulent election. I made an Excel file containing the time series of total votes that announced officially, you can find it here:

There is data of total votes of each candidates, based on the official reports of the interior minister of Iran on 12th and 13th June. There are 11 official reports, that you can find them on all news agencies, but I mention one of them here: (this is in Persian, but if you want I can find them in English too). As you can see in the file, the correlation between the total numbers of votes for all candidates are 1. As you may know, this mean that these four time series are completely correlated to each other, but when you think that in Iran elections, first they count votes for small villages, then small towns and then larger towns, and big cities and finally Tehran, it would be clear that the portion of songsters of candidates in all over the country should not be completely the same. For example, all people believe that Ahmadinejad have more supporters in villages than cities and Mosavi have more supporters in cities, big cities and specially Tehran. Eventually, if someone see the reports of total numbers of votes, it is clear that this is not a counting of votes, this is a result making! I mean they did not count votes, but stupidly create some portions for candidates and announced them. One other interesting fact is that the votes of Rezaee in 10th announcement is less than in the 9th one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver commented on a similar analysis here. In any event, it would be original research, which can't be used on wikipedia ( Policy against original research). Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What's going on in Iran today is nothing less than a coup d'etat, president ahmadinejad has not only cheated in the elections, but also he has organized arrest of around one hundred prominent political activists in the capital right after the election. Even the Newsweek is calling it a coup, I believe it definitely be considered as one: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Newsweek doesn't say it's a coup. They are quoting a Mousavi advisor Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Last coup hapenedafter Iran electon on 12 June 2009. Khameneye, Ahmadinejad and military forces change results of election unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't call this a COUP D'ETAT, when police, security as well as the military miliatary forces are suppressing the people's vote, then I don't know what a COUP D'ETAT is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Coup D'etat is an illegal or violent change of government --- what happened in Iran is both illegal (Ahmadinejad made illegal acts by cheating in the election) and violent (military forces have attacked people and about 100 reformists are arrested). At any rate, this IS a coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What kind of document do you need to consider what happened in june 12th a coup? If you need iranian officials to confirm it was a coup, it would never happen as long as they are in power. But if you want photos from military intervention, or documents on ignoring the votes, we can give you more than enough. Please answer if you have a slightest respect for freedom of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, comparing 2000 election in USA with june 12th in Iran is so STUPID, becuase:

1- The day they gave results in 2000, streets of big cities were not of full of military forces with weapons. 2- they did not put down internet and wireless networks for 3 days all over the United states. 3- They did not attack Al Gore campaigns all over United States, setting some of them on fire. 4- Military did not beat, arrest or shoot the democrat protestor in United States cities

If you have not been convinced, I can explain more.

What makes this election different with previous ones in iran, is that cheatings where always local, in some cities. Cheating in interior ministry, to this extent, and with ignorance of peoples votes has never been done.

at least you can have have the coup on the website, so that pros and cons can discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

a coup d’état involves control, by an active, minority of military usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) military’s possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country’s key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure (from wiki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are waiting for an official announcement of coup by the leader of Iran to clarify that: "yes, last election was a coup and we applied the military and paramilitary forces to keep the power of Ahamdinejad and in spite that Mosawi was the winner of election we won't let him to be the president" you never will find something, it is clear. check this out: "Khamenei's Coup" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

check this out, everybody inside iran knows it was a coup: [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC) p.s. some reformist parties such as the "mosharekat" party has also announced this to be a coup and later on they were arrested for saying such a thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times calls it as "a silent coup d’état." [7] (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there are lots of references and it is going to be appear in history books soon and also I think there are enough to prove the coup in Iranian election. I am not familiar with Wikipedia rules but please somebody add this coup to the list. Even if I am starting to understand all Wikipedia rules and I will add it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This kind of resistance against including Iran presidential election as a coup d'etat seems so strange, as this has been called "coup d'etat" by many sources most of them reliable and independant. I would like to put some of this sources for the attention of those who strangly resist. These include several analysis. I hope these references help them to believe the coup d'etat in Iran.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.


Please see the Coup of 12 June article for more complementary evidences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi horn (talkcontribs) 04:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Iran: Definition of coup[edit]

As the one who requested protection, I'd like to comment a little further about why:

The initial sentence of the article reads: "A coup d'état ... is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military." (my emphasis) . If I have understood what's going on in Iran correctly, there has been no change of government. So if Iran is to be listed, the very definition of coup d'etat needs to be changed. --NorwegianBlue talk 18:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority of iraninan voters wanted a change, and they voted for the reform candidates, however, ahmadinejad did not respect vote of people, and stayed in power by a paramilitary coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to understand the passion you feel for what's going on in Iran. I'm sure you'll find that many people share your feelings and want very much to support the struggle of the Iranian people. The opinions expressed here, though, are only about the encyclopedia article on Coups. I believe that people are editing the Iran page to reflect the ongoing events. Perhaps that would be a better place to add some of this content? Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As you may know and you can find in many resources, before the election supporters of other candidates started to encourage people to vote, because all of them wanted to change the current president. You know, there is a special kind of political structure in Iran. There is a supreme leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) that is a religious and political position and after that is the president. The supreme leader is not allowed to verify and confirm the election result before the Guardian Council that is in charge of survey and verify the results of elections. But one of the biggest problems in the last election is that the supreme leader announced the results and congratulated to Ahmadinejad even before the latest report of votes from the interior minister. That means that, he started to change the structure of political power in Iran without importance of election. I believe that after this election, the structure of political power in Iran changed from "Islamic Republic" to something like "Islamic Regimen". I mean, what that should determined the president was the election, in spite of lots of reasons for fraud in the election, the leader determined the president and so changed the government of Iran. Government of Iran changed after the last election because the elected president is not the announced one and they are using military and paramilitary forces to suppress the people who believe that the election was the trap. You should consider that the leader is not the head of cabinet. The role of leader in cabinet is a religious role and thus he should not introduce the president, he just verify the latest results after the latest report of Guardian Council. But this time he introduced the president while the counting of votes was not complete and he and ahmadinejad started to arrest all protesters using all military and paramilitary forces that they have. The problem is that they are very pawky and pretend that nothing is changed in Iran but the leader and the president changed the government silently and don't let protesters to talk, all of them are in prison now and many of people has been killed. If the government was as the same as the last week, the protesters would have done their complaints but now they are in the prison, many of people have been killed, internet is filtered, sms and mobiles connection are shut down, and today they have filtered email and chat services. and you can find out that many political reporters called it as a coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KamWiki (talkcontribs) 23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See this, this girl is died by a shot from Sepah, if this is not a Coup, so what's this ? [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamylo (talkcontribs) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Until it is proven, or at least widely confirmed, that the vote was fixed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, calling the election a coup is irresponsible. And I don't mean "I voted for someone else and he didn't win, so it was rigged". I mean an actual recount, or some action taken to PROVE one way or another. Protesting and violence prove nothing except that the people involved feel strongly. It doesn't mean they're correct. There are a lot of heated opinions about this. Don't let it become a problem. --King ? Talk 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Honduran case is not applicable[edit]

The recent Honduran events are not a Coup D'état. The Supreme Court ordered the military to destitute former President Manuel Zelaya for violating the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Congress as indicated in Honduran law. Once legally destituted, the Congress named Roberto Micheletti as President, following the established law. President Micheletti, therefore, is the legal President of Honduras, while former President Zelaya is violating the law, once again, by pretending he is.

I'm removing Micheletti from the list. Agreed. He is merely the acting president until new elections can be held, later this year. Zelaya was arrested and deported on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court. This is hardly an example of a military coup. Mingusboodle (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, "I'm removing Micheletti from the list" is dated 16 July 2009. It is now 5 October 2009 and he is still on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Honduras Not Coup Says US[edit]

Washington Post [2]

Clinton made the decision even though she did not determine that Zelaya's ouster met the U.S. legal definition of a military coup d'etat. Such a finding would have forced the administration to cut off assistance and had been urged by some leading lawmakers, including Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee....Clinton did not make that finding because Zelaya's ouster involved "the participation of both the legislative and judicial branches of government as well as the military," Kelly said.

Honduras must be removed from the list. (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why has this recommendation been ignored? If the Supreme Court of Honduras enabled the removal for illegal (high crime) activity by Zelaya, who in some other country is to challenge that? Honduras must be removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Honduras Not Coup Says US[edit]

Washington Post [3]

Clinton made the decision even though she did not determine that Zelaya's ouster met the U.S. legal definition of a military coup d'etat. Such a finding would have forced the administration to cut off assistance and had been urged by some leading lawmakers, including Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee....Clinton did not make that finding because Zelaya's ouster involved "the participation of both the legislative and judicial branches of government as well as the military," Kelly said.

Honduras must be removed from the list. (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"We are unable to locate the page you requested." In fact, some people might say that the qualification added to Micheletti in a note is OR. There is no reference for it. A good reference would be an article in a non-Honduran newspaper analysing the Honduran constitution. If no such reference can be given, the word "claimed" should be added. Your text (hopefully a quote from the disappeared article) mentions "US legal defenition of..." And there is the problem. This is not the US legal Wikipedia. If all major English-speaking newspapers around the world call it a coup, it is a coup. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Permanent protection????[edit]

This article is a mess as it stands. I understand if there was edit-warring, but personally I'd rather see hair-trigger bans on editors (starting with short bans, but escalating if offenses repeat) than a frozen article. There is currently no single clear definition on the page itself, and that's not helping the debate in relation to Honduras right now. Homunq (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The version is I read a few weeks before is really excellent. What happens?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is not a mess. It is written to provide an encyclopaedia entry on coup d'etat. I do not know whether it helps a debate about Honduras. I suspect that people with a POV to push, find the article unhelpful because it is clear and factual.

Homunq said: There is currently no single clear definition on the page itself. But there is:

A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.

Remember that Wikipedia is not a place of original thought; it is merely a place for recording what is thought - the definition comes from Edward Luttwak. --Toddy1 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My point was that I have found that articles under permanent protection tend to be lower-quality than those open to edits. Since the permanent protection has been revoked, the article has improved. (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't it also be included in the "incumbents received power after coup"? 2008 Mauritanian coup d'état, Mauritanian presidential election, 2009. Alinor (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • After reviewing the detailed Wikipedia articles about this coup, I added it to the list with a note explaining the elections that took place this year. Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine 2010 coup.[edit]

Today a Coup d'etat happened in the Ukraine. Read here:

Please put that back. СЛУЖБА (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No it didn't. A court has put the result "on hold" pending appeal. That is not a "coup" under any definition of the term. – ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Germany 1944[edit]

The following text is in this article: "The 20 July 1944 plot by parts of the German military to overthrow the elected National Socialist government of Adolf Hitler in Germany is an example of a failed veto coup d’état."

On what planet was Hitler elected? The persecution and threats involved make the idea that 1933 was an election ludicrus. And does one guy setting of a bomb qualify as a coup? (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that the German Government of 1933-45 was democratically elected. Hitler was appointed Chancellor on 30 January 1933, after the German federal election, November 1932. On that day, Chancellor Hitler had just as good a claim to be democratically elected as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1940, or British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2007. Unlike Churchill and Brown, Hitler fought an election campaign soon after becoming chancellor: the German federal election, March 1933.
In a democracy, one way of being elected is to offer the people what they really want. As a whole, the German people of 1919-1939 had a deep racist hatred of Jews and wanted a war of revenge after their defeat in 1918. Hitler offered to take action on both of these for them, and they voted for it. And when the Germans found themselves being bombed by the RAF in World War II, they had only themselves to blame.
The 20 July plot was not a lone person setting off a bomb - a full coup d'etat was planned; only some parts of the plan were implemented - the big problem was that some of the leaders hesitated, wanting to know that Hitler was dead before they did anything.
The 20 July plot is a good example of two things:
  • A failed coup
  • A coup against an evil democratically elected government

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I staunchly disagree with Toddy1 that Hitler and the Nazis were duly and rightfully "elected" for the purposes of this discussion. Accordingly, the 20 July Plot should not be listed as an example of a veto coup d'etat.
While Hitler was indeed initially elected in early 1933, he and the National Socialists almost immediately eliminated all political opposition in Germany. By the end of July of 1933, only the National Socialist Party remained, and outspoken opposition leaders were arrested, or worse, assassinated. I do not know if there were elections after that point - perhaps so - but it hardly mattered, as there was no real "choice" in Germany after that point except the Nazi party. Thus, I flatly REJECT the notion that the 20 July Plot should be classified as a veto coup d'etat, and am deleting that reference on the main page to reflect that conviction. The 20 July Plot was indeed larger than Col. Stauffenberg, but the method was not to subvert the will of the people by deposing "duly elected leaders."
After careful reading and consideration, I believe the 20 July Plot would most accurately be described as a guardian coup d'etat, primarily because there was no change in the fundamental structure of the government - only the personnel were to have changed, and the purpose for the plot was to overthrow what the plotters perceived (rightly) to be an evil and corrupt regime. Further, the 20 July Plot was not led by a "Revolutionary" army - in fact it was led by factions within the existing army, again, a feature of a guardian coup d'etat.
One last thing - I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and so if I'm proceeding the wrong way, please let me know. My understanding is that anyone can edit entries, but that for them to survive an edit war, the changes must be defended and backed up. I think I've done that here, but am open to further discussion on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Were your comments an April Fools' Day joke? Or do you really believe that the plotters intended to retain the SS, the Gestapo, the system of Gauleiters & Kreisleiters, etc.? These had become by 1944 part of the fundamental structure of the government in Germany. If you do, you are mistaken.
Hitler was just as much elected as Allende.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hitler was (sort of) elected in 1933. In 1944, he was not an democratically elected government. And, destitution of a democratic government was not a sufficient condition for a coup can be considered a "veto coup" (after all, most guardian coups had been also against democratic governments-- (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hitler came to power in 1933 by the normal processes of forming a coalition government, where one party does not have an overall majority in parliament. This is common in European democracies.
That the German government of 1933-45 suspended regular free general elections is not unique. They justified this by claiming that there was a national emergency. The British should have had an election in 1940, but this was also suspended because of a national emergency.
The democratically elected German government of 1933-45 was an evil government that manipulated the system to achieve their ends. But many of the things they did were not unique, which was why they got away with it.
The big difference between the situation in Chile in the 1970s and Germany in 1933-45, was that the German Army left it too late, whereas the Chilean armed forces took action in time.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


“A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder” Unelected union groups seized political control of Members of Parliament, a critical segment of state machinery if ever there was one, and effectively forced Rudd to resign, and gave Julia the power to reshuffle the Cabinet as she saw fit. The old government was destroyed and a new one was installed due to the work of unelected people.

That's a coup d'etat if ever there was one. Stop reverting additions of JG to the list. (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm a bit confused by the qualifier "in Marxist historiography" regarding the Chilean coup. I was under the impression that there was a fairly broad consensus that Pinochet overthrew Allende in a coup among both non-Marxist and mainstream historians. Noam Chomsky, William Blum, and Naomi Klein have all referred to it as a coup, and none of them are Marxists (at least, I know for a fact that Chomsky isn't, and I'm reasonably certain on the other two). While I've encountered examples of people claiming that the coup was in defense of democracy, I don't recall encountering an instance of somebody claiming that it wasn't a coup. I just thought I'd ask for clarification rather than changing it, as there seems to have been some heated discussions regarding what does and does not qualify as a coup.

Napzilla (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Coup vs revolution[edit]

The article could make clearer the relation between a coup and a revolution.

Unlike a revolution, which is usually achieved by large numbers of people working for basic social, economic, and political change, a coup is a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel. [4]

pgr94 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Kyrgyzstan's present leader also came to power with a coup in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Everything I've read is that Idriss Deby assumed power in Chad from a coup in 1990. Why isn't he included on the list of current leaders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farolif (talkcontribs) 21:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Then provide citations for it.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well you added Deby, but you did not add any citations to back it up. According to Deby's Wikipedia biography: "He moved to Sudan and formed the Patriotic Salvation Movement, an insurgent group, supported by Libya and Sudan, which started operations against Habré in October 1989. He unleashed a decisive attack on 10 November 1990, and on 2 December Déby's troops marched unopposed into the capital, N'Djaména." That is not a coup; so I am reverting it.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Any number of sources refer to this as a coup.
Plus, Wikipedia's list of coups d'etat includes the 1990 event. Farolif (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, so we're agreed that Deby belongs on the list. I have trouble understanding, though, why this case needs citations on the page, but none of the other leaders do. Is it simply because Deby's Wiki bio doesn't spell out the word 'coup' in its description of it? Farolif (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if they all had citations.

I have difficulty understanding how what happened can be called a coup d'etat - but since you have a whole sheaf of good citations saying that it was... Wikipedia:Citing sources says "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Capital letter[edit]

Shouldn't it be a capital letter E in Coup d'État? Like the titel of the book mentioned in the article. Adville (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is named according to Wikipedia policy.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
See /Archive 3#Requested move for previous discussion. --Kusunose 01:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Adville (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Any concensus on the status of the Maldives? The country just had a regime change following a police & army mutiny. Farolif (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Are there any reliable sources calling it a coup? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a 50/50 call at this point. Most sources I found (BBC, Al Jazeera) are using the word in quotation marks to show they are repeating the claims of ousted President Nasheed & his supporters that it was indeed a coup, while the opposition is denying it as such. According to this article released since I posted this topic, the question of whether the mainstream media will refer to it as a 'coup' might be answered shortly.Farolif (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In this case I suggest we hold-off calling it until a clear consensus emerges. Among other things there are WP:BLP concerns which also advise us to be cautious. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
One side refers to it as a coup ( ) and one as a constitutional change. My opinion is that it should be listed on a list, but with a special note about it. HeadlessMaster (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
No independent, third-party source calls it a coup. BBC is not calling it anything. Only the brother calls it a coup.

His brother Naushad Waheed has accused the former vice president of seizing power in "an illegal coup" in February.


Until the BBC or other third-party reliable sources call it a coup we cannot include it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2012[edit]

|- |President || Mohammed Waheed Hassan* || 07 February 2012 ||  Maldives || Asia (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done See the section above; waiting on consistency in reliable sources. Dru of Id (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Its not yet clear whether the change of Government in Maldives is a coup. Commonwealth also failed to call it a coup and requested investigation into the transfer of power. No one has declared it as a coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


Someone just added current Greek government as the result of a Coup in the table "Current leaders who assumed power via coups d'état". Quite an exageration, isn't it? Besides the lack of source.--G Furtado (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


Where on earth did that english pronunciation come from? Nobody uses that.. they pronounce it roughly the same as French but without an accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


Paraguay's recent ousting of its President is probably a coup. Most of Latin America condemned it and following that Paraguay was suspended from Mercosur. The President who got ousted Fernando Lugo was only given two hours for legal defense! This alone should almost categorize it has a coup.

coup d' etat of November 22, 1963[edit]

This article is remis in omitting the US coup of 1963. This was clearly a coup, but of course no mainstream news agency will characterize it that way because the mainstream media is also part of the machine which supports the policies by which those who executed this coup espouse. So there will be no acknowledgement by any mainstream news source calling it a coup, but the merits on which the assassination event occured clearly define it as a coup by the vast majority of those who have researched the subject enough to be considered authorities.Concorderider (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)concorderider

Museveni and Djotodia[edit]

Yoweri Museveni and Michel Djotodia did not assumed power via coups d'état but by winning a civil war - a different thing, I think.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  • As the article indicates, a coup d'etat is generally - but not always - led by a faction of the state leadership. The 'breakthrough coup' category specifies a coup led by "a revolutionary army", which is the case for Museveni and Djotodia. Additionally, numerous news sources have referred to Djotodia's ascending to power as the result of a 'coup'; a few others (one such example here) have also used the term in appropriate reports about Museveni. Farolif (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Egypt - June/July 2013[edit]

The events of 30 June - 3 July in Egypt have not been internationally or legally accepted as a coup d'état, but rather a (second) revolution owing to the major changes it has caused to the economic, societal and political constructs of the nation, most particularly being the dissolving of the parliamentary structure and the revoking and replacement of the constitution - (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What happened, by definition, was a coup. Yes, it may have been popularly supported. It was still a coup. Samuel Peoples (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, at this point, the Wikipedia article regarding the topic refers to it as a 'coup d'état'. So if only for the sake of consistency in the encyclopedia, the list of current leaders having assumed power via a coup should include Adly Mansour. Samuel Peoples (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The title of the article 2013 Egyptian coup d'état is under dispute. While I also lean towards calling it a 'coup d'état', the matter is not clear at this point. So, I think Adly Mansour should not be listed yet. We need to wait for this to take its course and allow a consensus among sources to emerge. I see no urgency in deciding this matter now, especially without consistent sources.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
At this point, the encyclopedia refers to it as a coup, citing countless sources. Until that changes, I think we should be consistent throughout the encyclopedia in referring to it as such. Samuel Peoples (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For anyone wishing to join the debate on this, see Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état. Samuel Peoples (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

PM of Fiji should be added to list of incumbent leaders[edit]

I think that the PM of Fiji should be added to the list of incumbent leaders put in power via a military overthrow. December 6 2006. (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Bainimarama is already listed and has been so for some time now. Farolif (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

alternative name[edit]

I, a non-native speaker, found in the online version of this book "Hayyim, Sulayman. New Persian-English dictionary, complete and modern, designed to give the English meanings of over 50,000 words, terms, idioms, and proverbs in the Persian language, as well as the transliteration of the words in English characters. Together with a sufficient treatment of all the grammatical features of the Persian Language. [Teheran, Librairie-imprimerie Béroukhim] 1934-1936." the (perhaps dated, archaic or simply rare) term statestroke (see URL). Is this term still used or has it been completely replaced by coup d'état nowadays? (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Stroke of state" already redirects to this article. Farolif (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Coup d'état and civil war[edit]

Is it true that "When the coup neither fails completely nor succeeds, a civil war is a likely consequence." Could you please give more information or cite some sources about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLari (talkcontribs) 07:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Erronous definition?[edit]

Where does the definition come from? "A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; plural: coups d'état), also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden deposition of a government,[1][2][3][4] usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military." The references are not at the end, and the text before the cites is obviously wrong since it excludes all the self-coups. A better definition would be "…the sudden break of constitutional order, usually by a small group…" The key feature is the break of the constitutional order (which can be by a juridical decision as well, see the literature), and not the change of head of state or similar. Case in point: In 1772 the king Gustav III of Sweden made a coup d'état, breaking the constitutional order (writing a new constitution), but not changing the head of state. (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

UKRAINE 2014[edit]

According to definition on this page there was A Coup D'etat in Ukraine. The Country's leader was forced to leave the Country (or he would get killed), then in his absence he was voted out of power. Explain how this is not so. STOP vandalising the table unless you have something to add to the discussion. Yopie just keep removing edit with no explanation.--Jimmydreads (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No. It doesn't work that way. You have to supply a reliable source which calls this a coup. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Also please do not accuse other editors of vandalism. This is not proper behaviour and is against the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I meant no harm mentioning a name, I was frustrated by lack of messages during reversion. I forgot that edit history can be seen. But please if you wish to continue reprimanding me, do so on my Talk Page Jimmydreads (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No, definitely not. I did not wish to reprimand you, just to advise you regarding how things should be done on wiki. Now that I see you got the points I referred to, there is no need for any further advice. It's all good. Thank you for taking these comments onboard. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yanukovych was removed from office via parliamentary vote as per Ukraine's constitutional rules, therefore it does not qualify as a 'coup'. (Furthermore, he was still in Ukraine when he was ousted.) Farolif (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Please provide evidence to support these claims Jimmydreads (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I also want evidende because the constutitional law of Ukraine states otherwise than Farolif said. Only possible legal way firing the president of Ukraine is explained constitutional law of Ukraine. --mrl586 (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please provide temporary protection for this article until the issue can be resolved. Jimmydreads (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The only protection needed is from your edit-warring. Please do no continue this way because you may end up losing your editing ability for a short period of time due to edit-warring. Hopefully you will not continue. Let's just hope for the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The only reason for edit-waring was for lack of discussion. I have ceased. Sorry that it happened. Jimmydreads (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you for understanding. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine 2014 - Oleksandr Turchynov[edit]

I believe he should have been included as one of the recent leader who seized power as a result of coup d'etat? I mean Yanukovich is the rightfully elected president president, overthrown by a putsch backed by the USA. Norum 11:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Reliable neutral source for this? And understand that Russia is in war with Ukraine, ocupiing her territory, and Russian state news are not neutral source.--Yopie (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yanukovich is still de jure president of Ukraine because they have fired him wrong way which is against constutitional law of Ukraine --mrl586 (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • it's hardly an occupation since Ukraine has an agreement with Russia to let its Black Sea Fleet use the Crimea until 2042. Norum 11:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Eritrea's Afwerki[edit]

I propose to add Isaias Afwerki to the list of "Current leaders who assumed power via coups d'état. His ascendency to power was a result of the Eritrean War for Independence, and qualifies as a "coup" in the sense that his revolutionary group (Eritrean People's Liberation Front) overthrew the Ethiopian government within the territory that would become independent Eritrea. Farolif (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Civil wars and coups are different things-- (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


The lead implies that the French pronunciation is also the English one. Is there seriously anyone who would pronounce coups as "ku"? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dilma Roussef[edit]

I have a serious problem with adding Dilma Roussef to the list of leaders that were deposed by a coup. She was suspended from her position pending an impeachment trial by the Brazilian legislature via the constitutional processes. This does not fit the definition of a coup. She has called the whole process a coup, but that is political spin and shouldn't be taken at face value. Am I wrong?

Sdbarry1 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You are right. The situation is this: as a result of the dictatorships of the past, there is a complete social consensus in Latin America that coups are wrong, that they must be completely off the table of political options. But then, populist leaders like Dilma, Chávez, Maduro, Kirchner and Morales took advantage of it, and dismiss any legal control or oversight over them (including impeachments when misconduct is too grave), and even press criticism and social discontent, with conspiracy theories about covert coups against them. They even have a name for it, "golpe blando" ("soft coup"). This is not the first time this happens: the Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo was impeached and removed from office in 2008, and the populists called it a coup as well. But a conspiracy theory is still just a conspiracy theory, even if a national leader believes in it. 2 + 2 = 4, even if Big Brother says that 2 + 2 = 5. Cambalachero (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fair to wait for the ruling of coup scholars before the wiki page labels it a coup. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)