Talk:List of coups and coup attempts

Decembrist Revolt in Russia, 1825

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)

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

Falsely describes January 6 as a coup

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Looking for Ukraine 2014 Coup d'état

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

The Bolivian coup of 2019 is not listed

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)

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)

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.

Extended content
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. 2800:CD0:2003:6400:E1E9:DF5F:6D1D:2ABA (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

DOGE/Elon Musk

Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk

It's in Category:Coups d'état and coup attempts in the United States. It's described in sources on that article as a coup. It should be listed here. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It being in that category is a circular argument – it doesn't really matter.

For us to include it here we're going to need rigorous academic sourcing and more broad agreement that this is what it is, not hyperbole journalism or opinion pieces. — Czello ^(music) 17:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"the title does not even refer to it as a coup, you should start a discussion first"

Hun, most coups listed on this article don't have coup in the title.

"not hyperbole journalism or opinion pieces"

Please let the authors of Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk know if it is not up to Wikipedia's standards. As it stands, it is, because it has not been AfD'd. If an article exists on Wikipedia calling it a coup, then for the intents and purposes of this page, a list of coups on Wikipedia, it should be listed. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The first quote isn't from me, you'll have to take it up with whoever said it.

As for the second and the sources:

• The Al-Jezera article only says they're "accusations", and when you dig into it it's just from AOC. Obviously not enough there.
• The Atlantic source is an opinion piece.
• Techdirt does not look reliable; in fact it looks like a blog at worst or another opinion piece at best.

— Czello ^(music) 18:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, take it up on Talk:Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk if you have a problem with the sourcing (which tbf, you have done, but bringing them up here is pointless for this discussion).//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

What happens on that article doesn't have bearing here. — Czello ^(music) 19:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the critera for verifiability or notability or neutrality differed from one article to the next. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand, or are conflating things: if you want to include it here, it needs to be sourced here. The validity of those sources can equally be questioned here. — Czello ^(music) 21:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It's policy that WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You cannot use one article as a source for another. If you think the sources there are enough to justify putting it here, then those sources are up for debate here. Hi! (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Oort1 (talk · contribs), I added three sources, and there are some additional sources, which I have added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Warning to some of the users today, do not engage in an edit war. Instead of reverting, please list sources below documenting Elon's attempt as a coup. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus on inclusion and yet you still insist on restoring this. For such claims we need much better sourcing than this. Mellk (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

A congresswoman? Paul Krugman? Al-Jazeera? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

AJ is quoting the same politician. It was already mentioned above that it only mentions "coup" accusations. If we are going to include every alleged coup because a certain politician referred to it as such then good luck. Mellk (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

And Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The source is quoting his Substack and this is his opinion. Also, it "may" be a coup is the best we can do? Mellk (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. There needs to be some broader consensus among academics, rather than sporadic opinions. — Czello ^(music) 21:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Since there isn't even a separate article about this anymore, I do not think it should be reinstated here. Mellk (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

So link to DOGE then, there are still credible sources calling this a coup. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

We cannot state opinions as facts. As mentioned above, if some kind of consensus emerges in RS that this is a coup or coup attempt, then it would be suitable for inclusion. Mellk (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

There aren't really credible sources saying this, just opinion pieces and a Democratic politician. — Czello ^(music) 16:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Czello (talk · contribs), please check out the additional sources I have added. It's now five prominent Democratic politicians calling it a coup: four representatives (AOC, Ilhan Omar, Jamie Raskin, Sara Jacobs) and a senator (Chris Murphy). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

There needs to be some broader consensus among academics, rather than sporadic opinions

There aren't really credible sources saying this, just opinion pieces and a Democratic politician

Czello, please clarify how academics can voice their opinions without the existence of opinion pieces. Are you saying we shouldn't add this coup to the list until there has been a peer reviewed literature review published in a highly reliable scientific journal on these events? //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear what they meant. We shouldn't rely on opinion pieces. You are still edit warring. Mellk (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty clear you and Czello have an opinion in mind and are picking and choosing the facts that represent your worldview. The fact that the two of you have consistently ignored any valid point raised by me or Hurricanehink is pretty telling. I want you and Czello to actually spell out your inclusion critera: at what point do you stop denying the existence of sources calling it a coup? Give an actual answer, not "ooo, oPiNiOn PiEcEs, CrEdIbLe SoUrCeS" nonsense.

what about the other 531 members of Congress? - my brother in christ, you cannot be serious.

I would expect plenty of news sources to call it a coup/coup attempt - again, wishy washy nonsense. There are already plenty of news sources. See the giant list below.

You are still edit warring - Sorry buddy, unless the other 48,646,339 Wikipedians agree with you, there is no consensus that I am edit warring. See how ridiculous that sounds? //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Please don't cast aspersions. You are edit warring because this change is very clearly contested but you have restored it one way or another repeatedly. I should also note that this is a contentious topic so mocking other editors is not a good idea. Mellk (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Absolute non-answer. Do not engage in this talk page if you don't want to actually engage with the topic at hand. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 22:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe review WP:PA first? I am not really keen on engaging with somebody who is making the discussion toxic. Mellk (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Do not engage in this talk page if you don't want to actually engage with the topic at hand //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 22:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, I will just ignore you then since you are not being constructive. Mellk (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Mellk. I asked you a question. What is your inclusion critera? Answer the question. Specifically. I am trying to actually understand your position and instead you are misdirecting. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 22:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Please relax yourself. It doesn't take literally every other Wikipedian to say you're edit warring for it to be so. As long as you're re-adding something when there's no consensus, you're edit warring.

No, opinion pieces aren't good enough. Per the policy: opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

What I think myself and Mellk are looking for is a broader consensus from academics, not sources saying "so-and-so says it's a coup". Anyone who is a politician is already invalid. Non-notable people are invalid. Professors are an improvement, but a couple of individuals isn't good enough. Wait until there's something actually peer-reviewed that says it and then we can talk. — Czello ^(music) 08:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Mellk (talk · contribs) - we have four members of congress calling it a coup attempt. Is that enough? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hold on. Four members of Congress say something (about their opponents) and that is supposed to be enough for us to state something as fact? This is supposed to be a list of coups and coup attempts, not a list of events that have been called coups or coup attempts. Mellk (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Four members of congress, a Nobel prize winning economist, various other sources. At what point is it official enough? The world's richest man has assumed control of a part of the US government. This is serious stuff and rightly belongs on this list. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

What about the other 531 members of Congress? If it is super obvious that this is a coup then I would expect plenty of news sources to call it as such, not just a number of opinion pieces or other articles that quote somebody else's opinion. Mellk (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably too scared to speak up. There's a long list of sources below calling it a coup, but I wouldn't expect too many domestic news sources calling it as such, not when CBS and CNN paid the president settlements for frivolous lawsuits. For a non-biased point of view, we might need to rely on sitting representatives and foreign points of view to call a spade what it is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• The article in question - Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk - has now been merged into Department of Government Efficiency. I also object to this content being added here in this article because there has has been no overthrow of a lawful government through illegal means. The United States government still exists. And until there is sources documenting that the US Government no longer exists, it can not be included here. Per WP:ONUS, when contentious content like this is disputed, the burden is on those who want to include it to achieve consensus before it can be added back. And hyperbolic commentary from lawmakers and journalists doesn't equate to the US Government being overthrown and no longer existing. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  This page also lists coup attempts though. At what point would you include a coup attempt? //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 22:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  They are claiming that a coup has already happened, not that this was simply a coup attempt. Mellk (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Q. At what point would you include a coup attempt? A. When Elon Musk attempts to illegally remove President Trump from office. This is what a reliable source describes as a coup attempt; armored vehicles rammed the doors of Bolivia's government palace Wednesday in an apparent coup attempt, or this - January 6 United States Capitol attack. As of right now, Trump has given Musk permission (by executive order) to dismantle and/or close these federal agencies, and fire some or most of the employees, but they are not overthrowing a lawful government. It remains to be seen if their actions in relation to these federal agencies are illegal, a court and/or congress will eventually decide that, but the United States government has not been overthrown, nor has there been an attempt to remove President Trump from office. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  The first sentence of the coup article - "A coup d'état is typically an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership. United States has three branches of government, and Musk has illegally seized control over part of it. Musk doesn't need to illegally remove Trump - he's an unelected plutocrat from another country that has disproportionate power over the United States government structure. Besides, Musk doesn't even have official power to do any of this - he hasn't been confirmed by Congress, and as far as any information has come out, this man doesn't even have a security clearance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Aside from this kind of being on the WP:OR side of things, I want to challenge Musk has illegally seized control over part of it. To be honest, we don't actually know it's being "seized", more that they gained access to systems and data. Furthermore I don't believe that any legal body has confirmed it is illegal. — Czello ^(music) 16:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Congressman McCollum called it illegal, Washington Post headline calling Musk's activities illegal, Business Insider says Musk's activities are illegal, Jamie Raskin says it's illegal, [Bernie Sanders says "What Musk is doing is illegal". Do you need more sources Czello (talk · contribs)? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I asked if a legal body had declared it illegal. Politicians, for obvious reasons, can't be taken as a reliable source here, so let's dismiss those outright. The WaPo article says "legal objections" and "raising alarms about whether the billionaire’s assault on government is breaking the law". Business Insider has questionable reliability (WP:BI).

  Plus, as I said before, this would be an WP:OR argument anyway as we don't make our own interpretations of the law. — Czello ^(music) 18:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Has a "legal body" declared every other coup on this list? We have professors and economists calling it a coup. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  We were talking about whether Musk's "take over" (again, that's not really what happened) was illegal. I'm saying for it to be illegal it needs to be actually shown to be.

  That said, yes often times the sourcing on Wikipedia needs to be better than it currently is (especially in this example) per WP:LITTER. — Czello ^(music) 19:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  A successful coup is, essentially by definition, legal. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Retroactively, perhaps. See the top of this thread, we're quoting this page where it describes them as "illegal". — Czello ^(music) 07:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

How many professors, economists, and protestors have to call it what it is before it's listed? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia preferred secondary news articles over primary sources? Why is this page different? Also, how can the 'reputable sources' publish documents calling it a coup when they are being ousted from their positions? The vice president said, "The professors are the enemy." Satur9ine (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

What academics are being ousted from their positions on such a scale that they can no longer publish papers? — Czello ^(music) 16:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/05/us-scientists-trump-executive-orders Satur9ine (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This doesn’t support your claim at all. It's a bit silly to suggest that it's impossible for academics to publish peer reviewed texts now, therefore we have to lower our standard of sourcing. — Czello ^(music) 10:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sourcesSatur9ine (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If anything, you're engaging in OR by making the assumption that academics suddenly can't publish. — Czello ^(music) 18:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This list explicitly states that "there is no precise inclusion criteria." I have provided two Wikipedia guidelines that support the use of the sources you have dismissed. That said, how long does it typically take for peer-reviewed articles to be published following a coup? Days, months, or years? You expect them on day four.

It is evident from previous discussions that you are unwilling to accept this inclusion regardless of wording, and that this stance extends to the cited sources as well.

Elon Musk said, “Defund Wikipedia until balance is restored!” It is disappointing to see you go to bat for him after he threatened your hobby. Satur9ine (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You expect them on day four Not at all, see WP:NORUSH. Ultimately if this was truly a coup, they'll appear. — Czello ^(music) 07:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

List of sources identifying event as a coup

1. Slate.com
2. TheGuardian, quoting AOC "This is a plutocratic coup."
3. Aljazeera, also quoting AOC
4. USAToday quoting "Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative economic policy group and a former Senate senior economic policy advisor"
5. MarketWatch, quoting economist Paul Krugman, "We may already have experience what amounts to a 21st-century coup"
6. Jeet Heer at TheNation
7. [1] - people are protesting the coup
8. Ilhan Omar, Jamie Raskin, and Chris Murphy called it a coup
9. A journalist saying it's a coup
10. More protests about the coup
11. Philly Inquirer
12. A Michigan county commissioner says it's a coup
13. The New Republic
14. Protests in Texas calling it a coup
15. Boston College Professor calling it a coup
16. Representative Sara Jacobs Explains Elon Musk’s attempted coup
17. Milwaukee Independent newspaper
18. Joan Walsh at the Nation
19. Economist Richard Murphy
20. Experts Say a Coup Is Underway as Musk Seizes Control of Government Agencies, quoting Waleed Shahid and Lindsay Owens
21. Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin - "it is looking more like a coup than a transition right now"
22. Yale History Professor says "That coup is, in fact, happening. And if we do not recognize it for what it is, it could succeed"
23. Le Monde Newspaper
24. Daily Beast David Rothkopf
25. Slate.com Dahlia Lithwick
26. Peoples World Mark Gruenberg "Thousands mass at Treasury Department to demand end to Musk coup"
27. Guardian (opinion) Moira Donegan
28. Common Cause
29. Futurism Victor Tangermann "Trump Loyalists Reportedly Furious With Elon Musk Over DOGE Coup"
30. Michael Moore
31. la Nouvelle Republique Le coup de force d’Elon Musk au cœur de l’État américain
32. Richard Hétu
33. Zeit - Schieritz
34. Deutschlandfunk "In den USA findet ein „administrativer Staatsstreich“ statt"
35. NyMag - Chas Danner "That is not efficiency; that is a coup" quoting Seth Masket
36. Senator Ron Wyden "for all practical purposes I’d call that a coup"
37. indivisible
38. Verge "Elon Musk’s computer coup"
39. The Conversation "Critics are calling Musk’s actions at DOGE a massive corporate coup. Others are simply calling it a coup."
40. The Guardian Seth Meyers on Elon Musk’s US takeover: ‘A billionaire coup’
41. The Nation "The Courts Can’t Stop the Trump-Musk Coup"
42. The Ink "Overnight, the Musk coup ran into serious legal pushback"
43. AP News "Democrats, for their part, accused Musk of leading a coup from within the government by amassing unaccountable and illegal power."
44. Common Dreams (Opinion) "We Must Rise Up to Stop This Corporate Coup—and Fast"
45. MSN "DC protesters condemn ‘puppet’ Elon Musk's latest 'coup' attempt"
46. CBC "'Stop the coup' shout protesters against Trump, Musk in nationwide rallies"
47. MSNBC "'The telltale signs of a coup': Musk's power grab draws outraged backlash"
48. Halifax Examiner "What to do in response to Trump’s attempted coup - We are right now witnessing the unfolding autocoup of Donald Trump, as he claims unprecedented and unconstitutional executive powers, upending acts of Congress, ignoring the courts, and more."
49. Baptist News "Please don’t call it a bloodless coup. Police officers were attacked, beaten, bloodied, crippled for life and killed in the January 6 insurrection. The current coup is Trump’s way of completing the insurrection".
50. Joyce Vance - Law Prof "So, “coup” is the correct way to label the transformation of government we are living through."
51. Common Dreams "Progressives Demand Senate Dems Halt All Trump Confirmations to Combat 'Corporate Coup'"
52. The Ink "it is both justifiable and necessary to characterize Elon Musk and Donald Trump’s joint assault on our government as an attempted coup."
53. Democracy Now
54. The Guardian Opinion "If he succeeds, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman warns, it would be a 21st-century coup – with power slipping from elected officials’ hands."
55. Independent Australia "In reality, the U.S. is experiencing a non-violent coup d'état that has the potential to change the nation into a fascist state run by oligarchs and a madman who would be king."
56. The Ink "What Musk is doing right now, along with Donald Trump—but also usurping Trump’s at least elected authority—is waging a coup against the Constitution of the United States."
57. New Politics "Trump has given his advisor billionaire Elon Musk, now head of the team called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), power to take over government computer systems in a move that looks like an electronic coup"
58. WBUR "The 'administrative coup' underway underscores Trump's anti-democratic ambitions"
59. Scheerpost "We Must Rise Up to Stop This Corporate Coup—and Fast"
60. MSN GOP Senator Mike Lee said, "This has the feel of a coup—not a military coup, but a judicial one." Musk reposted that comment Saturday evening, writing simply, "Yes."
61. NY Carib News In Columbus, Ohio, protesters gathered outside the Statehouse shouting, “Wake up USA! Stop the coup that’s underway!” They deem his takeover of the government as a coup. Chants of “No more Musk, stop the coup,”
62. David Graham (Former MP) Who's Resisting the Auto-Coup?
63. Daily KOS Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-VA04) Says “Yeah this is a coup...by Russ Vought & Elon Musk"

Compromise

@Czello, Isaidnoway, Mellk, and Hurricanehink: Would you be okay with the wording 'The actions of the Department of Government Efficiency have been described as a "takeover", "freeze", or "coup" by members of the Democratic Party and media.' with a link to Department of Government Efficiency#Actions within federal government. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I prefer that wording, it's to the point, but I recognize that other users might dispute it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The compromise wording that I added has been removed sometime last evening. Anyway we can do another revised wording to stop an edit war? MoogleB (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

My issue isn't the wording, it's the existence of it on this list at all. — Czello ^(music) 10:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

DOGE is interfering in congressionally mandated agencies. While I agree that citing the democratic party alone is not good wording, it must be addressed that DOGE is overriding congressional law with its involvement in USAID, Department of Education, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 37 Sources above. MoogleB (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Your compromise wording, seen here, doesn't cite the democrats, nor is it attributed to anyone else, your wording is in wikivoice. In the main article, Department of Government Efficiency, it is now in a sub-section appropriately titled "Conerns", and the opinions of those voicing those "concerns" are given proper attribution. DOGE/Musk is not mentioned in Coup d'état, nor is it mentioned in List of coups and coup attempts by country. I don't think it belongs on this list either, because it doesn't satisfy the inclusion criteria. The proper place for this content is in the main article about DOGE, not here. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 — Czello ^(music) 18:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The page is marked with a banner that says, "This list has no precise inclusion criteria as described in the Manual of Style for standalone lists." It doesn't meet your criteria.
Coup d'état is an overview of the concept—why would it include a list? List of coups and coup attempts by country is a child of this page that sorts coups by country rather than by date. It is largely written by the same contributor, who has repeatedly deleted DOGE from this page. The point I'm making is if this event is to be listed as a coup, it would logically be listed on this page first. Satur9ine (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

When the tag was added in June 2022, as seen here, the only thing the lead said was - This is a list of coups and coup attempts, so it was an appropriate use of the tag. When a more precise inclusion criteria was added to the lead, the tag was never removed. Please feel free to remove it, or in the alternative, start a discussion about changing the inclusion criteria. Either way, I stand by my original comment, it doesn't satisfy the inclusion criteria and the proper place for this content is in the main article about DOGE, not here. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You want me to remove the tag, acknowledging that your interpretation supercedes that of mine and others? That's honestly quite manipulative and a clear sign you are operating in bad faith. Goodbye. Satur9ine (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not think the inclusion criteria is related to the lead. See WP:LSC. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe the tag still applies. MoogleB (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Your compromise wording, seen here, doesn't cite the democrats, nor is it attributed to anyone else, your wording is in wikivoice. Please do not pretend like you care about the quality of the sources or the voice of the addition. My initial compromise wording which you reverted here had 24 sources attached and used proper voice. To revert Satur9ine's on that basis is very manipulative when you're clearly against the existence of it on this list at all.

DOGE/Musk is not mentioned in Coup d'état, nor is it mentioned in List of coups and coup attempts by country. Firstly, it wouldn't appear on Coup d'etat because that page doesn't list coups. And it should also be listed on List of coups and coup attempts by country too, obviously, because it is a coup. To quote your comrade Czello: It [not] being [on that page] is a circular argument – it doesn't really matter.

So to sumup, your arguments are nonsense circular logic that I used earlier (I commend you) and "I've hallucinated the inclusion critera and it doesn't fit"//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, quality over quanitity. — Czello ^(music) 07:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian, Le Monde, CBC, AP News... all amongst the highest quality of sources you can have for news... //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 09:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Which again either includes opinion pieces or quoting opinions from sources that we wouldn't normally include. — Czello ^(music) 13:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

So news articles that quote opinions from politicians, economists, legalists, etc, are not available to be used as a source for something being a coup? Just clarifying before I purge the entire list of every reference that meets this new proposed inclusion criteria.

The Guardian doesn't quote anyone for calling it a coup, it just straight up calls it a coup. Or is the proposed inclusion criteria academic sources only? In which case we might have to delete this whole Wikipedia article. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 15:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The link to The Guardian article you provided clearly states it is an editorial from the Opinion section of US Politics, and WP:HEADLINES are not a reliable source. The only other mention of coup in the editorial is attributed to Paul Krugman. So no, they are not just straight up calling it a coup. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

An editorial is different from an opinion piece. It is the news organisation expressing its own opinion, rather than some pundit expressing its opinion through the medium of the news organisation. My impression from both you and Czello is that no news articles of any kind would be acceptable as a reliable source and that only academic sources would satisfy. If this is the case, then we must update the list on all other extries with this new inclusion criteria. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 MoogleB (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

But the editorial from the news organization is not straight up calling it a coup. We can't use headlines from an editorial or any other article to say that. That is my point. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh is _that_ your only objection now. Oh okay, of course. I didn't realise the _only_ reliable source is now editorials excluding the title. This is the standard we should apply across Wikipedia, I'm sure that makes sense. Please be sure to not move the goalposts or Bikeshed even more after investigating these sources:

• https://eu.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2025/02/05/a-coup-is-unfolding-before-our-eyes-heres-what-you-can-do/78249870007/
• https://www.freepress.net/blog/musk-trump-coup-doge
• https://www.staradvertiser.com/2025/02/06/editorial/island-voices/column-u-s-history-gives-context-on-trump-and-a-rolling-coup-detat/
• https://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/editorial/2025/feb/06/stiehm-a-coup-by-any-other-name/

//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 22:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Per our guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, yes, it is standard practice that we do not use headlines of editorials or any article as a reliable source. I think you'll find there is community consensus for that practice as well. Like I previously stated, that was my point in relation to The Guardian link you provided, they are not straight up calling it a coup, because it is not supported by the body of the source. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Ignore the point, again. Congrats. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Looking back through the talk page archives, it appears the reason the inclusion criteria tag was left on the article was because of this discussion, where no consensus was reached on how to define coup and attempted coup. So maybe we should revisit that discussion and try to establish a definitive inclusion criteria for this article.
  Interestingly, I also ran across this news item from this past summer, where Ron Johnson and other high-profile Republicans referred to Biden’s dropping out of the race as a coup. When Trump was asked about it being a coup, he replied: "Sort of, yeah," and JD Vance said, "I think it is." So, according to the loosey-goosey proposed inclusion criteria of reliable sources reporting on other people's opinions of what they think a coup should be defined as, Biden's dropping out of the race would qualify for this article. In comments related to Biden dropping out, political science professor Matt Cleary said journalists and partisans on both sides are guilty of misusing the term "coup" and exaggerating each other’s actions, such as "attacks on democracy" and "existential threats." I believe that Cleary's logic applies here with DOGE/Musk as well, because we are seeing the same type of hyperbolic reporting from sources misusing the term coup, and willing to quote anybody and everybody who opines that this is a coup or attempted coup.
  As for whether DOGE/Musk/Trumps actions are constitutional and/or illegal in relation to what they are doing, will probably be decided by the courts, but I still believe this content has no place in this article and is better suited for the main article Department of Government Efficiency. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Happy to chime in on that discussion if you desire to reopen it. The lack of clear inclusion criteria is evidentally a problem.

  Obviously not every use of the word coup should be listed here, but if there's a Professor Tom, Nobel Laurate Dick, and Political Commentator Harry who are all in agreement, then I am inclusionist for that. Though I don't know how I feel exactly on including political party coups. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Minor update, but Musk said "yes" in agreement that it feels like a coup. So we got Musk in agreement! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

@Bird244 I'm sorry but not liking a source is not grounds for removal. You have removed multiple sourced entries from this list with the latest reversion. Please explain. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

it is if the sources used are innacurate, against wikipedia consensus, or misleading. if you can prove that the colour revolutions for example, and the Arab Spring, are indeed coups, then wikipedia will need to redefine what it means by a revolution, and what is a coup d'etat. if these are indeed coups, what about the revolutions of 1848? Bird244 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything - unless you are contending the sources did not call those events coups in which case please identify which sources failed verification. Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

then what is the difference between a coup and revolution? Bird244 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

A revolution is something described by reliable sources as a revolution. A coup is something described by reliable sources as a coup. Now, I must ask again, did any of the sources you removed fail verification or did they call those events coups? Simonm223 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with Bird244's drastic content removal and believe he should have waited for consensus from the Wikipedia community. However, he raises a valid point: some of the removed content was poorly sourced or even unsourced. I can provide some examples:

Unsourced or containing only a Wikilink (which sometimes contradicts the "coup" narrative): 2011 Bahraini uprising, Bulldozer Revolution Jeans Revolution, Cedar Revolution, Orange Revolution, Tulip Revolution, Rose Revolution, Abkhazian Revolution, 2022 Kazakh unrest, and Andijan massacre (which your entry in this article describes as an "attempted revolution" - contradictory). To be fair, both the Abkhazian and Kazakh unrest were described by the authorities in power as "coups" - but I don't know if that's enough to include them on this list.

Poorly sourced:

Tunisian revolution - the sources cited are a book with no specific page reference and an Al Jazeera article that does not describe Ben Ali's fall as a coup.

2024 Bangladeshi "military coup" - The Economic Times reports on Bangladesh's history of coups, but doesn't specifically categorize Hasina's regime change as one. I believe it is a misinterpretation of the source.

2024 Syrian coup attempt - I think this falls under the WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RUMOUR policy. Speculation of an attempted military coup against Assad was strong during the 2024 Syrian opposition offensives, but I don't know if a similar event occurred - please provide sources if I'm wrong. The Fact-news source does not clarify whether the Republican Guard clashes were against forces loyal to Assad or dissidents. However, since the mention of rebels at the beginning of the news, it is likely that the clashes were against dissidents, I believe that is the most common interpretation. In any case, the Fact-news source is insufficient to support this allegation.

I hope that a peaceful consensus can be reached on the issue of addition of content related to the Arab Spring, Colour revolutions or other recent events. An edit war is unnecessary, a serious verification is needed. Vrostky (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria in the lead at the time of when this topic was started states:

A coup d'état, often abbreviated to coup, is the overthrow of a lawful government through illegal means. If force or violence are not involved, such an event is sometimes called a soft or bloodless coup. In another variation, a ruler who came to power through legal means may try to stay in power through illegal means, thus preventing the next legal ruler from taking power. These events are called self coups This is a chronological list of such coups and coup attempts, from ancient times to the present..

The article is tagged with - This list has no precise inclusion criteria as described in the Manual of Style for standalone lists. So keeping in mind these two guidelines, WP:SALLEAD and WP:LISTCRITERIA, is the present inclusion criteria in the lead "precise", or does the criteria need to be expanded, gutted, re-evaluated, or what? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe that these inclusion criteria are too vague. What does "illegal means" mean when the individual who gains power changes the laws? If someone where, per chance, to override multiple laws causing multiple lawsuits be creating a unprecedented, unvetted and unaccountable organization under a billionaire. Would it be illegal if the billionaire said it was legal? MoogleB (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)