Talk:List of coups and coup attempts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clarify scope?

The lead is currently as follows: “This is a list of coups and coup attempts. I propose to add the words “including possible events that have been claimed to be coups or attempted coups.” So the lead would say this:

“ This is a list of coups and coup attempts, including possible events that have been claimed to be coups or attempted coups. ”

This is important for clarity, and also so that we don’t misrepresent the scope of this list, which already includes about a dozen incidents which we cannot and should not say in wikivoice are coups or coup events. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer). It’s important that list criteria be unambiguous and objective. That’s not presently happening, and several entries on this list right now arguably violate the current list criteria (because we cannot verify that they were coups or coup attempts). So let’s broaden the list criteria. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Point of order In what substantive way is that different than a rehash of the requested move thread above? Please don't tell me one was title and the other text because that's just the packaging. It's the identical issue, isn't it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I opposed that title change for reasons explained here. In any event, a title change is a different matter than an edit to the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The way out of this pickle is by creating LISTCRIT, which I'm trying to do in a constructive way in another thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I will support any proposal that helps to get us out of the pickle. For example, I would support reversion of this edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible coup is way too broad, opening the door to all manner WP:FRINGE. Inclusion criteria likely boils down to RSes verifying the coup interpretation of a given event exists widely, but certainly not unanimously. Feoffer (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s a good point, WP:FRINGE says not to give undue weight to fringe-y stuff. The problem of giving undue weight to unverified coups and coup attempts would be solved by segregating unverified stuff in a separate section of this article labeled as such, like this But if alleged/unverified/claimed stuff is mixed in with the other stuff, then we do have to figure out another way that would avoid giving undue weight to fringe-y stuff. If you would like to propose a better way than the way I’m proposing in this talk page section, please do. If you want to insist that RS’s explicitly say the claims are widespread, then we’d probably have to delete almost all of these items. Probably a better solution would be to keep those items in a separate section, but I’m about ready to accept almost any solution that would solve our present anti-policy status quo, Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If the NPOV noticeboard agrees that we have sufficient RSs to just include Jan 6 on the list of coup attempts, as opposed to your characterization of a possible coup attempt, would that satisfy you ? And do you have a SINGLE RS that says Jan 6 was not a coup or self coup (at least second time asking)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You are not allowed to write in a BLP that the subject beats his wife merely because you cannot find a reliable source saying that he doesn’t. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means and repeat my questions. please answer simply and directly to avoid WP:DISRUPTSIGNS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You request me to find “a SINGLE RS that says Jan 6 was not a coup” and I am telling you that that request is just like asking me to find RS saying a BLP subject did not engage in an awful behavior that you want to write he engaged in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a clarification at all. It's already been discussed above. This is equivocation and obfuscation, using the word "claimed" to suggest either that the label "coup" is claimed or that the event's verification itself is a mere claim. This strikes me as just a WP:POINTy relitigation of a settled matter and I suggest OP close and withdraw it. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t want to start an RFC without a full discussion at this talk page first. But if you think it’s okay to proceed with the RFC then I will. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes this is fine. I think "possible" is an extra word, could be just "including events that have been claimed to be coups or attempted coups". Also IMO "may have been" reads smoother than "have been claimed to be", but whatever. I think this does not require or even imply that article name be changed -- it should not IMO. Titles do not have to describe everything in the article in detail, a longer titled would violated the "Conciseness" pillar of WP:AT, and I think people looking for debatable events will figure out to come here anyway. IMO there should also be a separate section for debatable events. This suggestion for rewording doesn't impinge on that one way or another. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think it is pointless to dig a deeper hole discussing the scope because that's tackling Anythingyouwant's primary concern (2020 US election) by way of generalities which invites unresolvable disagreements due to the implicit handwaving inherent in everyone's opinion when we debate generalities (including mine). Instead, what seems potentially resolvable is to debate the actual text of inclusion criteria to be added via Template:List criteria. By debating the precise language, we're not longer arguing in the abstract, but in the actionable nuts and bolts. That will do much more to get resolution on the whole messy mess. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

List Criteria Part 2

Per WP:LISTCRIT we have to have criteria, and per Template:List criteria we have to link the thread or RFC where we agreed on what those criteria will be. Hopefully we can craft consensus here. Earlier I boldly floated the following flawed idea

To be included on this list, an event must be sufficiently notable that it merits its own Wikipedia article. In cases of genuine debate whether the label "coup" is applicable, this list uses standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines including reliance on what Wikipedia considers to be "reliable sources" and uses citation and attribution to present the mainstream perspectives with due weight.

Unless I overlooked (or forgot) one, there were three objections as follows 1. Some entries don't have wikipedia articles. That's especially true for events the farther back you go in antiquity 2. "Genuine debate" was totally trashed as just a reason to fight.... (and I guess I deserved that, with a double scoop of "duh") 3. At least one ed thought it was a weird WP:SELFREF to Wikipedia.

So with those thoughts in mind, I'd like to PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING

Events before (year to be determined) may be included if they are mentioned in historical references. Later events must be sufficiently notable that they have their own Wikipedia article.

This change resolves objections 1 and 2. For objection 3, notice that WP:SELFREF is not a total ban on self-references to Wikipedia,and explicitly mentions that our notability standard is often mentioned in list criteria.

This won't resolve Anythingyouwant's worry about how Jan 6 is labeled, but can we at least agree on these list criteria for a starting point? We can always have later discussion about making amendments. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I am worried about how lots of items are treated here in this list. We presently mischaracterize them in wikivoice as coups or attempted coups at your insistence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Requiring a full article for inclusion seems overly narrow. There's no reason to delete well-sourced entries, e.g. 2020's Saudi Arabia detains senior royals for alleged coup plot, including king's brother. I'd suggest language such as "events which have been characterized as a coup or coup attempt by reliable sources." Feoffer (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Compare the >100 page report by a half dozen US jurists (Trump on trial...), some of whom are very well known, calling Trumps thing a coup, versus someone like Trump getting huffy with the WH Press Corps and "characterizing" something they didn't like as a coup. If we did what you suggest, we'd have to include the handwaving nonsense if its reported in the RSs. We need language that deals with FRINGE/UNDUE etc to go with your proposal.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I propose:

To be included in this list the prevailing view among relevant Reliable Sources must be that an event was a coup or attempted coup.
For events in distant history, a single source may be sufficient if few sources exist covering that time and place. For modern events with abundant sourcing, supporting sources must outweigh any contrary sources.

The first sentence is intended to be the criteria, and would be suitable for inclusion on the main page here. The two subsequent sentences are optional clarification, more intended for the talk page if needed. Alsee (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

JFK assassination and other alleged coups

This list has been limited for a very long time to actual coups and coup attempts, verified as such by reliable sources. For example, see this discussion fourteen years ago about whether to list the JFK assassination, which some people viewed as a coup per reliable sources. Because this issue about alleged stuff seems to be recurring, I think we should put something into the lead about scope. Either that, or start listing stuff like the JFK assassination. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Triple yawn; the archived thread contains zero, repeat zero, suggested sources, reliable or otherwise. And here we are again doing the same hand waving. How about starting over with suggested RS for a meaningful discussion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Zillions of reliable sources have discussed the possibility that the JFK assassination was a coup d’etat. But the reliable secondary sources do not say in their own voices that there was a JFK assassination coup. So does the JFK assassination coup qualify for this list of coups?

• “Expert Cyril Wecht calls Kennedy assassination a coup”

• “Relying in large part on an investigation begun in 1968 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, Stone's 1991 film alleged a government-wide plot that amounted to a ‘coup d'état’ against Kennedy, the goal of which was to maintain the Vietnam War”

• Coup in Dallas: The Decisive Investigation into Who Killed JFK

• There was coup d’état in America:’ Dr. Cyril Wecht weighs in on decision to open JFK assassination files

Etc, etc, etc. I think we should clarify this list’s scope in the lead so that mere allegations of a coup or coup attempt are not included in the list. Or we could include allegations in a separate section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The content is inappropriate because it's WP:FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting sources. I'm personally uninterested in the JFK discussion here, and have no opinion, but I do appreciate you going on record for the sources you want to use. It would also help discussion to see draft text presented here. I'm not saying I'd support it, or oppose it, or think it is (or is not) Fringe, just making discussions suggestions. Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy, I’m not proposing to list any JFK coup in this article. I’m proposing to clarify in the lead that mere allegations of a coup or coup attempt are not included in the list (or alternatively we could make a separate section for mere allegations). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

In my view, you've shot yourself in the foot by asking about JFK when what you really want to talk about is a generic issue, questioning the appropriate WP:SCOPE of this article. I'm open to talking about "allegations" of coups a bit before considering what, if anything we should do about that, but let me ask you this.... in the event a coup attempt fails, could we ever describe that as a coup attempt, rather than just an alleged coup attempt? I mean, where is the referee who gets the say-so to make the call? If you say yes we could, please describe how you would assess if the RSs are sufficient for Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth purposes? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course, we could describe a failed coup as a coup attempt, for example if uncontested reliable secondary sources say (in their own voices) that it was a coup attempt. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As you just used the word, how would we measure whether a secondary RS is "uncontested"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia editing 101. “[A]rticles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.” If no reliable secondary sources take a particular view as their own, then the view is very likely a minority view. We can write about the minority view, but I don’t think it should be mixed in with the views that are so widely held as to be adopted by reliable secondary sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That seems nonresponsive to me. I had asked you to explain As you just used the word, how would we measure whether a secondary RS is "uncontested"? Care to try again? Alternatively how, in your mind, you think your first answer settles the "uncontested" question? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I said above, “we could describe a failed coup as a coup attempt, for example if uncontested reliable secondary sources say (in their own voices) that it was a coup attempt.” By uncontested I meant that no other reliable secondary sources disagree with those that say there was a coup attempt. Of course, that was an example, and I am not saying all the information in this article needs to be uncontested. But there does need to be some predominance in reliable secondary source that a coup or coup attempt occurred. Our article title claims in wikivoice that the content of this article consists of coups and coup attempts, so we ought to have reliable secondary or tertiary sources to back up each listed item. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth, but I would like to test if I understand by trying to say it back to you the way I understand it, and invite rejection or improvement of my restatement. It sounds like "uncontested" simply means that in the collective judgment of participating wikipedia editors, a statement is supported by RSs that pass muster with WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Am I close? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Not remotely close. The opinions of Wikipedia editors have nothing to do with it, because they (and Wikipedia itself) are not reliable sources. Again, Wikipedia 101. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Funny, I thought Wikipedia 101 was WP:CONSENSUS and therefore everything involves Wikipedia editors' opinions. Now it sounds like you're after WP:The Truth. So how do you think editors can determine what is "uncontested" without using their opinions in any way? For example, my opinion is that the BBC is an RS and the fact that most editors share that opinion just makes it a widely held opinion. But its still an opinion. So whatever elements go into the mysterious category of "uncontested" we'll still be using our judgment - i.e., our opinions, to evaluate those elements and see if they are (in our collective view) satisfied. And a core consideration after deciding if something is RS is evaluating the proposed text per WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. That's Wiki 101 as I understand it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Anythingyouwant That is indeed one fine strawman you have going on there. No sources ever truly speaks in its own voice on empirical matters, according to your fallacious reasoning. Articles about the DNA evidence used to implicate O.J. Simpson, for instance, refer to the DNA experts or forensic investigators. That doesn’t mean we cannot include it. You are trying to introduce a false balance into this. Thomas is simply speaking on behalf of the committee and reporting its findings, which is why the reporter is reporting it as such, a finding that Trump engaged in a coup. Makofakeoh (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

(A) If it's not too much trouble, please insert @Editor in your comment so third parties know if you are addressing me or Anythingyouwant. (B) Until the committee actually votes on "findings of fact" they do not exist. So far we have their on-the-record statements, but those can change before they vote. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. As for the rest: in a political hearing like this it is a foregone conclusion, a formality for such an unprecedented situation that won't be acknowledged in a meaningful way anyways by the whole body politic even if Jesus Christ himself came down and signed off on it. I'm simply being reductive, as is the committee, in presenting its findings which, at best, is all they can hope for: offering the truth in hopes that 'the truth alone' will stir meaningful change. This isn't a 3rd impeachment, after all, even though the last two did little to change the status quo. And whatever vote may follow isn't binding, beyond putting those on record who support it or oppose it. My 2 cents. Makofakeoh (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Roger that. Done and  Done

@SPECIFICO Since you are an experienced editor do you also mind offering your opinion above about whether or not this content should be included? Makofakeoh (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Which editor? SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO SPECIFICO. You. Makofakeoh (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been widely reported and discussed in RS that Thompson made that assertion, so I see no reason not to include it. User Anything is opposing it with a straw-person argument. It's not an RS issue for the attributed assertion of Thompson. It's only a due weight issue, and it appears to pass that test based on publications since the hearing. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO That is a useful, cogent summary; distilling the confusion right out of it. Do you mind sharing that here? [[1]]

Might be helpful for everyone involved since the debate gets muddled easily and that's a sobering perspective. Thank you for the feedback. Makofakeoh (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO that's only half of it though. I agree with what you said regarding the line item where we talk Jan 6. But that's NOT the text about which Anything (and at least one other at the RSN) raised wikivoice complaints. That complaint stems from the lead section of the article, which - so it is claimed - implies any entry on this list is definitely either a coup or attempted coup, and there isn't any wiffle waffle about it. Although I think Jan 6 should be included here, I have to admit there is just enough merit to this argument that it should be addressed. But the argument is easily laid to rest by adding text to the lead which explains our selection criteria. I've started a new section for discussion the Lead and inclusion criteria, somewhere down below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, if a major architect of the events of Jan. 6 tells you their motivation was to organize a "bloodless coup", does that count? That's why I added the Bannon content. He, of all people, knows best. As an architect for the coup attempt, he, and exactly his quote, were deemed reliable for the Jan. 6 hearings, as documented in the CNN transcript of the hearings. Bannon knew what they were planning, and before it happened he called it a "bloodless coup". His reliability in this situation has no bearing on his (un)reliability in other situations.

He is an ABOUTSELF witness, so even if the original source (his podcast) is not usually a RS here (it's propaganda, lies, and conspiracy theories), it can be used as an ABOUTSELF source, and because it was notable because it came from Bannon, the use in the Jan. 6 hearings elevated it to a RS description of the events and the motives behind it.

The situation is analogous to the following: A man is being questioned by the police about what led to his wife falling down the stairs and nearly dying, and he tells the police "I tried to murder her". That is a declaration of motive and intent by the accused and would be used as strong evidence when trying him for attempted murder. It makes no difference if the man is (un)reliable in other situations. For that one situation, he knows best what his motives were, and he is the most reliable witness there can be. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping but this thread petered out six weeks ago and I don't really remember it. Is there an action or decision or opinion you'd like me to revisit or something? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Attempted compromise

Seems worth noting here that, after the RFC about the list criteria closed automatically, I attempted a compromise solution which has since been reverted. That compromise solution added a paragraph to the lead:

“ This list should include verifiable coups and coup attempts for which the clear consensus of reliable sources is that they were exactly that. If there is not a consensus of reliable sources that something was a coup or coup attempt, it should be omitted, not included with a qualifier such as “alleged”. ”

The tag is back at the top of the article, and alleged incidents continue to be mixed together with verified incidents. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

not included with a qualifier such as “alleged” This is a solution in search of a problem; If we have an entire article on 1957 alleged Jordanian military coup attempt, of course it should be included here. Feoffer (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

My preference would be to include alleged stuff, but in a separate section. However, that RFC proposal attracted significant opposition, including from people who wanted to get rid of alleged stuff altogether. The worst possible thing is what we have now, with alleged stuff not excluded, and alleged stuff not put in a separate section. This is just a really unwise setup we’ve got now. I don’t understand why some editors insist upon it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Coup coup SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I kind of expected that link to go to this; Wikipedia editors do not determine if an event is "verifiable"; reliable sources don't discuss and use consensus process; What is the difference between "consensus" and "clear consensus"? Just a few of the additional problems with the text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, “Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.” Were those problems unfixable? And what exactly do you think is cuckoo? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The most fatal defect in your edit was the omission of Template:List criteria, which I could have added, HOWEVER the template requires a link to wherever consensus has been established. You sort of skipped that part. Lacking required parameter data, and introducing new Wikilawyer concepts (where we determine if an event was verifiable) the problems were not fixable at the article as a matter of Wiki process. My solution to the shortcomings is in a separate thread titled #List Criteria - NAEG version 3 ... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:SALLEAD, the lead section of a list “makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected”. I wasn’t proposing anything for the talk page, and I’m not aware that I had to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Gee that's strange.... not only does the very section you link point to Template:List criteria but I've pounded the table about it for you multiple times. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is it written that we cannot come to consensus on the lead first, before working on the talk page template? Per WP:SALLEAD, the lead section of a list “makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I left a courtesy note at the talk page of User:Seraphimblade that the blockquoted proposal was based largely on a comment he made. I would therefore encourage him to not participate in this section’s discussion, unless he’s sure it would be appropriate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, the definition of a coup attempt, involves overthrowing the incumbent administration or government, with help from the country's military. This didn't occur on January 6, 2021 as the incumbent was Donald Trump & neither his supporters or opponents, or the military tried to overthrow him. Now had that event occurred after Biden took office? then it would've been a coup attempt. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's really not good enough, to keep repeating various versions of that afaik, when it's been explained many times on this talk page that "coup" is an attempt to overthrow the government not merely the person who heads it. Trump was not the government. The constitutional order and institutions comprise the government, and there is widespread, well documented, RS description of Trump's actions throughout 2020, culminating in Jan 6, and possibly ongoing today, as an attempted coup. If this comes as a surprise to you, please do some reading on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The military didn't attempt to overthrow the US Government on January 6, 2021. The events of that day, pale in comparison to the USA's own Civil War, not to mention the country's involvement in two World Wars, etc. Democracy was never in any danger & isn't as fragile as news media would make it out to be. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

External link section

I didn't know what to think of the additional text AnythingYouant has been adding to the Ext Links section. Initially I reverted just because I assumed we're not allowed to do that. I later realized that kneejerk assumption was misplace, and I dropped AYW an apology at usertalk. But I didn't think at all about the content of the text. Today I have done that. It seems to me that these external links are adequately identified as not being cookie recipes or motor oil change instructions because they are labeled "Scholarly databases and lists of coups". Going on about the definitions in this section, instead of in the body of the article, strikes me as being not really what the Ext Links section was intended for. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It is entirely inappropriate, and we have no reason to rely on such content. Moreover it has been reinserted after I challenged it, so I again removed it so that it can be discussed here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 13:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don’t care whether the info goes in the external links or instead, per WP:LEADFORALIST, “Stand-alone lists may place non-obvious characteristics in a separate introductory section (e.g. List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Listing Bach's compositions).” We could have an introductory section after the lead that identifies the various scholarly lists of coups (presently in the external links), and recites the coup definition used by each one. The coup definition is obviously a central issue here, and is a primary difference between the various scholarly lists. There seems to be a concerted effort at Wikipedia to suppress and hide any indication that many scholarly sources interpret a “coup” as requiring participation of elites within the state apparatus, such as the military. That way it’s easier to characterize the actions of miscellaneous hooligans as an attempted coup. I prefer laying out the pertinent well-sourced information, and letting the reader decide what he or she thinks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's usually best to seek a consensus first, before making any major changes to a page. Otherwise chances are, such bold changes will end up reverted. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I try to abide by WP:BRD. I got provoked by the edit summary “Removing editor POV insinuated into External Links list”. Such groundless personal attacks really get me annoyed. They’re no substitute for reasonable arguments. But I should have resisted the “undo” button. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring is a big red flag that an editor does not anticipate being able to gain consensus on talk. I would say that your post here confirms that you will find little support for your attempt. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn RFC: Clarifying that this list includes unverified coups and coup attempts

I started this RFC, and am now more knowledgeable about the subject so am starting a fresh RFC below Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Editing this list gets more complicated if we want to include not just verified coups and coup attempts, but also well-sourced allegations that such incidents have occurred (like these claims). If such alleged incidents are included in this list, then we could (1) amend the lead to unambiguously explain the list criteria so readers will understand that some of the listed items are only alleged incidents, and/or (2) put alleged incidents into a separate chronological section with an appropriate header instead of mixing them in with the verified incidents. So the RFC question is this: shall we omit from this list all unverified incidents whenever step (1) or step (2) is not implemented?00:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Support (as proposer) because list criteria have to be unambiguous, and readers have to realize that some of the listed items are verified by reliable secondary sources, whereas some of the listed items are only listed because reliable secondary sources say that someone alleged them. Mixing the unverified incidents with the verified incidents also potentially creates an undue weight problem by giving the former undue weight. If unverified coups and coup attempts are to be included in this list, then both steps 1 and 2 need to be taken. We also might want to consider amending the list’s title in addition to steps 1 and 2. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Oppose Drop the stick. This is not a clarification at all. It's already been discussed above. This is equivocation and obfuscation, using the word "claimed" to suggest either that the label "coup" is claimed or that the event's verification itself is a mere claim. This just validates the kind of nonsense that various Republicans have told about Jan 6 -- that it was a tourist visit to the Capitol and no riot occurred. Thus the riot, insurrection, or failed coup was a mere "claim". This is not what RS say. This RfC strikes me as just a WP:POINTy relitigation of a settled matter and I suggest OP close and withdraw it SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC) The RFC statement and question use the word “claim” once, in parentheses. There is no suggestion that this word has to appear anywhere in the list. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Comment: It bears mentioning -- even if we were to decide to delete/segregate entries like Harold Wilson conspiracy theories, that wouldn't have any bearing on the entry you (Anythingyouwnant) are discussing at RSN. WP:V is met for that entry. Feoffer (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC) I looked at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election today, and it never says in wikivoice that it was a coup attempt. Maybe it should and maybe it will, but it doesn’t now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. The characterization as a coup attempt has been made by RSes going back to Jan 2021. Multiple individuals have been sentenced after confessing to their attempt to disrupt the proceedings, while others been found guilty by a jury for those charges. While the full scope and culpability may remain unclear, RSes agree globally that an attempt was made to affect the US transition of power. Feoffer (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC) I’d appreciate if you’d link to one of those RS’s. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure what's going on, but it looks like a thing. Yes, the lead should clearly explain the list criteria. No, a bunch of stuff shouldn't be removed until it's explicitly spelled out in the lead. It also shouldn't be removed while hashing out the line between coup, coup-like event, alleged coup or whatever else. Is there already consensus on points 1 and 2? Is this about something specific? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot) I’m not sure if there’s really consensus for steps 1 and 2. I doubt it. Every time someone tries to implement step 1 or step 2, there’s some objection about it. That’s why I didn’t propose any specific way to carry out either step, and instead am just asking that until those steps be carried out unverified coups and unverified coup attempts not be included in this list. I hope that clears things up. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC) An RFC on either of those points would have been a more effective place to start. As it stands, I oppose removal until there is consensus on list scope and organization. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC) I probably shouldn’t say this, but your oppose would probably be more effective if you say why. I don’t think there will be consensus on list scope and organization if people think that all of this stuff can be listed even without that consensus. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC) The alleged coups have been included for at least a year so there's implicit consensus to include them. At this point the removal requires consensus, as the current scope clearly includes them. Why we would go against the status quo before consensus to change the scope exists? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC) This RFC is meant to establish that consensus. Anyway, this list is currently in violation of policy such as WP:LISTCRIT, WP:UNDUE, et cetera. I’m not sure about WP:TITLE. There are plenty of lists that handle these issues correctly, e.g. List of alleged Chinese spy cases prosecuted in the United States. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC) And others disagree, so now it's down to consensus building. Maintain the status quo until there is consensus to change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Others say they disagree, but that should not impede article improvement if an RFC determines that they are mistaken. Anyway, User:ScottishFinnishRadish I am going to heed your advice and close this RFC before more people get involved, and try to re-frame the RFC question, dropping the idea to remove stuff until steps 1 and 2 are accomplished. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish in answer to your question, I don't hold this view, but as best as I was able to understand the objection as hashed out at the RSN (see WP:Writing for the opponent) the basic idea is that the title of this list is "List of coups and coup attempts". Er go, they say, everything on this list, by way of that title, even if it is drowning with inline attribution, is declared in WP:WIKIVOICE to be either (A) a coup or (B) a coup attempt. So the OP wants to add "possible". And if we're honest, the OP (less than 30 days off a US politics TBAN) has made only the passing expression of interest, if any at all, in any entry other than the 2020 US presidential election. The current entry for that event, of which I am the main (only?) author, uses inline attribution and citation rather than Wikivoice. However, those who hold the view behind this RFC say that being on this list despite inline attribution, due to the title, is implicitly using Wikivoice. The current entry says (Current version 1093641820) 2021 American coup attempt: President Donald Trump refused to concede to Joe Biden after losing the 2020 United States presidential election, leading, for the first time in at least 220 years, to a failure of the peaceful transition of power. As early as January 2021, several European security officials described the events as an attempted coup. Federal Judge David O Carter ruled that Trump's efforts to overturn the election were a "coup in search of a legal theory". In a televised hearing on June 9, 2022 Congressman Bennie Thompson, Chair of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, described President Donald Trump's campaign to overturn the 2021 presidential election as an attempted coup. The RFC OP wantsd to label this a claimed or other WP:WEASELWORD coup attempt, rather than just using NPOV inline attribution. I observe that despite repeated requests for RSs that dispute the "coup" label, they don't offer any. Instead they start new threads in multiple venues trying to argue the same basic points. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC) For the record, I don’t care if we use the word “possible”. I only suggested it after User:NewsAndEventsGuy proposed using that word in the article title (see this edit summary). This kind of nonsense is rampant at this page. How about if we try addressing the arguments instead of maligning the editors? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC) You've repeatedly tried to insert variations of "possible" "claimed" and "verified and "Debatable" in the text of this article, and argued for something along those lines in multiple threads at multiple venues. Right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC) That’s right, I’ve tried to be flexible and suggest different approaches. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Is this about something specific? There's been a fair amount of venue shopping and dead-horse beating with regard to the 2021 American coup attempt. Anything's various proposals have included outright deletion, segregation in a controversy section, or redefining the article's scope so as to exclude the event. Feoffer (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Of course many editors here are interested in the 6 January issue. But the RFC shows a structural problem with this list even putting aside 6 January. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Not really. The only problems are some entries lack citations and there is no LISTCRIT at the top. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC) refs for this RFC Still more RSs re the 2020 election can be found at one of our Jan 6 articles, and I'm collecting more at my Sandbox2 (note the 2 on the end). Feel free to make suggestions at the associated talk page, especially high quality analysis that say coup/selfcoup is not applicable to this event, because I'm looking for those too (but finding none). Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC) References

RFC: How should we deal with alleged coups and alleged coup attempts?

Editing this list gets more complicated if we want to keep including not just verified coups and coup attempts, but also well-sourced allegations that such incidents have occurred (like these items). If alleged incidents are included or retained in this list, then we could (1) amend the lead to unambiguously explain the list criteria so readers will understand that some of the listed items are unverified by reliable secondary sources as actual coups or actual coup attempts. We could also avoid undue weight and confusion by (2) putting alleged incidents into a separate chronological section with an appropriate header (like this for example) instead of mixing them in with the verified incidents. So the RFC question is this: should step (1) and/or step (2) be implemented? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support both steps as proposer. I have withdrawn an RFC I started a few hours ago, which additionally proposed removing the alleged stuff until steps 1 and 2 are completed; that additional proposal would have proven controversial, and distracted from steps 1 and 2 themselves. List criteria have to be unambiguous, and readers have to realize that some of the listed items are verified by reliable secondary sources, whereas some of the listed items are only listed because reliable secondary sources say that someone alleged them. Mixing the unverified incidents with the verified incidents also potentially creates an undue weight problem by giving the former undue weight. We also might want to consider amending the list’s title in addition to steps 1 and 2. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Also support both steps. Seems like a no-brainer to me. FelipeFritschF (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@FelipeFritschF: The devil is in the details. Can you propose some text for defining the criteria to be plugged into the article via Template:List criteria? This RFC is pretty much asking about Agreement in principle and we need to come down from the clouds to focus on something tangible that we could actually implement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you agree in principle? If not, then there’s no point discussing particular language, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There's been extensive history of venue shopping, but this crosses threshold for WP:STICK Feoffer (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Opposed but willing to do alternative The problem with the proposal is it puts us in the position of injecting WP:WEASELWORDS which is fraught with risk that we might unintentionally inject POV or the readers will interpret our words with their own prior POV bias. In addition, we will have endless controversry when one truckload of RSs say "Bob says its a coup" and the other truckload says "Its a coup". What do we do then? (See my comments in the prior closed RFC above). One way to avoid this minefield is to make an Agreement in principle (precise wording to be figured out later) that WIKIVOICE will only be used in an events entry when there appears to be a consensus of historians. In all other cases, we'll use inline attribution. This would solve 100% of the RS/verification problems, on a line entry basis. It does not address the view (which is not my view) that the title itself is WIKIVOICE and overrides inline attribution at the entry. But I don't really see that as a problem. I'm opposed to part 2, which is splitting the list because splitting on the basis of WEASELWORDS, even if they are not stated, still implies them and has the same problems as just explicitly stating them. And to try to split on the basis of historians consensus is just another way of implying WEASELWORDS so that is the same half dozen as the first. Last, regardless how we solve these things here, in theory the same list of events is also found at List of coups and coup attempts by country. Our approach should be the same on both articles, or even better they should be merged. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure whether to say "support" or "oppose" or anything else here. However, simple enough. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable via a consensus of the reliable sources on the matter. This list should include coups and coup attempts for which the clear consensus of reliable sources are that they were exactly that. If there is not a consensus of reliable sources that something was a coup or coup attempt, it should be omitted, not included and then weasel-worded around. The only items on this list should be those for which there is a clear consensus among reliable sources that it was a coup or an attempt at one, since that is what the list is for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade, how about if we take the two steps proposed in this RFC plus put the word “alleged” into the article title, like List of alleged Chinese spy cases prosecuted in the United States which includes convicted people and others? I mentioned in the first !vote above that we might want to also consider changing the title. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

How about what I said was exactly what I meant? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

If the word “alleged” were put into this title, then I don’t understand why you think the list would not be for both verified coups plus verified allegations of coups. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We should have an article about things which are confirmed to be coups or coup attempts by a consensus of reliable sources, not gossip about "alleged" ones. So, I would oppose any such title change as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade, that’s a very valid rationale for Wikipedia not providing info about many alleged coups, but not necessarily all of them. The most famous example is that the word “coup” is currently used 99 times in the article Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election which never once says in wikivoice that a coup attempt occurred, and instead that article merely describes verified allegations of a coup attempt. I hope you’ll consider this RFC proposal at least as a stop-gap measure until all alleged coups are banished from Wikipedia. More generally, history books are full of the words “may have”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

6 January was a coup attempt. There is nothing fuzzy about that except by some fringe types who have deliberately attempted to muddy the waters. Whether or not that article specifically makes that clear is not germane; what matters is what the sources say, and I have seen plenty of them explicitly call it a coup attempt. And given the definition of "coup" (an attempt to illegitimately gain or retain power by force), I certainly cannot see any reasoning by which one could disagree. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade, I have no opinion about whether it was a coup attempt, and if so by whom (some people have been charged with seditious conspiracy but no one has been charged yet with insurrection much less convicted). If the pertinent Wikipedia article finds a consensus of reliable sources saying it was a coup attempt, then clearly the categories should reflect that, and it should be included in this list of coups and coup attempts without saying it’s merely alleged. But there’s still lots of other alleged coups and alleged coup attempts, linked in the RFC proposal above, and those allegations have not been backed up by any reliable secondary sources which merely reported the allegations; I gather you think Wikipedia should not mention those incidents, and you may be correct, but for now Wikipedia does mention them so the categorization ought to be accurate, and if they are included in this list then it ought to be done carefully so we don’t imply the allegations are either true or false, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support the first proposal. It's definitely not good that the criteria are not mentioned anywhere now. Not sure about the second one - is it enough for one person to call it a coup to add it to the list? Alaexis_¿question? 07:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know! And there's no way to be sure. Just as with very very many other lists and articles, the only way to know is to debate it out on a case-by-case basis. Editors can hash out whether one person is enough. Editors can hash out if that one person is important, expert, and neutral enough -- what if the person is Walter Cronkite? Geraldo Rivera? Steven Colbert? Newt Gingrich?. Then a consensus is achieved, or if not the material is usually not included per WP:BURDEN. Oh well, that is what editing the Wikipedia entails, and there's nothing you can write down that will stop that, even if you wanted. Herostratus (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if one person calls it a coup, and then one newspaper quotes that one person without saying that the person is correct, then it could get added to the list. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Please clarify whether you support an idea in principle or if you understand the proposal has text to go into Template:List criteria? If the latter, could you please state the text as you understand it? Your third opinion might help move things along. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any list criteria being proposed, happy to comment on specific wording.

As a side note, most of the events whose inclusion in this list would be contentious are relatively recent so maybe we should introduce a cooldown period of, say, 10 years so that we don't need to rely on newspaper articles. I realise this would a bit unconventional, just raising it as an option. Alaexis_¿question? 14:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Re your side note, the range and type of RSs describing the election as a coup or selfcoup is big and broad and goes far beyond newspapers. I can point to some if you want. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support both steps. For starters, the RfC begins with "Editing this list gets more complicated if we want to keep including not just verified coups and coup attempts, but also well-sourced allegations..." While that matters, it doesn't matter much. The goal here is to serve the reader, not worry about whether it is or isn't more complicated for us, within reason. I think it serves the reader to include debatable events, and to include them in a separate section. Herostratus (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is getting consensus on actionable criteria that will be used to (A) include an event at all and (B) sort it into "debatable" and By-god-NOT-debatable sub lists. It is easy to make an agreement in principle but as we all know, the devil is in the details. Its time to stop talking about the principles and talk about Template:List criteria text, as a way of focusing on something we could actually implement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Its clear from the recent discussions that this is targeted at deprecating what RS describe as Trump's coup attempt. But given that goal, these discussions will never end, because "coup" is the mainstream NPOV description of the event. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment on 1: There's a sorta-meta study ref'd on the Coup d'état article that reviews basically every attempt to define coups to date (2011), and makes as comprehensive a definition as possible. It seems to be essentially exactly what you want to work from. Thyne's site has all his free preprints and replication data (from which you can get your full list of successful and failed coups since 1950). SamuelRiv (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Powell, Jonathan M.; Thyne, Clayton L. (2011-03-01). "Global instances of coups from 1950 to 2010 A new dataset" (PDF). Journal of Peace Research (Preprint). 48 (2): 249–259. doi:10.1177/0022343310397436. ISSN 0022-3433. S2CID 9066792. Retrieved 2022-06-20.

Thanks do you have specific ideas how this can be used> NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Those authors say: “To summarize, our definition of a coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive.” (p. 252) But do we want to adopt that definition and thus contradict reliable sources that have a different definition? I think the better approach is to list as coup attempts all events that a consensus of reliable secondary or tertiary sources describe as attempted coups. Then we can have a separate section for other purported or unconfirmed coup attempts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Their 2011 paper also says (right in the abstract) "absent is a discussion of what makes coups distinct from other forms of anti-regime activity", and they include a table with myriad prior definitions. Those authors restricted "coup" in part to actions designed to topple a sitting chief executive. They explicitly omitted self coups. Ten years later, another coup research group published a different standard. Cline Center Coup D’état Project Dataset Codebook (v2.0.2) (2021). Their definition expands the potential target from toppling the sitting chief executive (e.g. current US president) or to "displace the authority of the highest levels of one or more branches of government." (e.g., US Congress). Using their codebook, by the end of Jan 2021 this bunch had classified Jan 6 as an "attempted dissident coup", while noting the definition might change as new info comes to light, and the explicit possibility discussed was the possibility they might add attempted self coup to the classification. [2] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest cautious self-awareness if your objection to having a sourced set of standards (and in some cases a single sourced list) comes from the desire to include one event in particular (or all similar-class events that would need to be included for the purpose of including one event). That's not really justifiable in a "list of" article, which by necessity suffers from some inclusion/exclusion errors, and does not need to use criteria consistent with articles of the individual events themselves. On another note, these survey-type studies are sometimes thorough enough to include events that aren't easily researched online. Compare P&T's 400-something list of coups since 1950 to slightly less than 350 so far here (which is tbf impressive). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I trust this ethereal advice is well intended but fail to see any ACTIONABLE proposal for article improvement. Feel free to clarify what you suggest we actually do in tangible verbiageNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The article I linked has a set of standards and a list of coups and attempted coups since 1950 under those standards. They also review several other articles that do something similar. What I thought was clearly implied is that I suggest you (as in regulars to this article – I'm just on RfC) pick one of those academic standards and use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelRiv (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Scratch that, I only now actually looked at the Cline Center database you linked, and it's way better. It's actually possible to auto-write an article from the dataset, if anyone here likes csv files. Cline Center Coup D’état Project Dataset, 2021, doi:10.13012/B2IDB-9651987_V3 SamuelRiv (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the Cline Center’s view is that there have been two coup attempts in U.S. history, per this news report which doesn’t seem to accept or reject that view. FYI, another academic article on the subject is here (I haven’t been able to access it yet). One of the authors (Erica de Bruin) says on Twitter, “The forum begins with an introduction by @prof_powell & @poliscisbh, which traces how scholars have defined coups over time. It notes that Jan 6 does not fit, & emphasizes some limitations of the narrower definition of coups scholars have adopted in recent years.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. It appears our investigations only result in academic sources that do not confirm our initial biases. Instead of publishing what we found regardless, we (by which I am referring to us WP editors -- this is allegorical/rhetorical/satirical) should either refuse to to publish anything and delete our article, or we should modify our data criteria until our publication conforms to said biases. And really, if we did anything else it would just be POV-pushing. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Rail line ends here

And just to add to the list of drawbacks of listing coups by individual RSes, it can just be endless. Here's Ackerman and Pomper on Bush v. Gore (2000). SamuelRiv (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"can be endless".... indeed, the main reason I've long been dubious of list articles NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ackerman’s characterization was widely disputed, e.g. by Posner.[3] I would not object to including Bush v. Gore in a section on claimed/unconfirmed/purported/unverified coups and coup attempts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If you folks wanna talk about adding Bush-Gore, please start a new thread for that purpose. I'll observe that the Posner book (ISBN 9781400824281) is dated 2001, so it is not a commentary on Jan 6 or the 2021 Cline center RSs I cited earlier. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This RFC is not focused on any particular event. So, this RFC is no more about 2021 than it is about 2000. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You started the RFC to ask in Q1 about adding the word "alleged" to the list criteria. Whether any given event should be included deserves its own section heading per WP:TPG. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to delete the discussion by myself or by other people about examples, in this RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This is what happens in list articles about unclearly defined topics or where sources disagree over the facts. My suggestion is to delete this and similar articles. In the past, the term was only applied to the illegal seizure of power by small cliques. Now it refers to any contested transfer of power, even when ostensibly legally sanctioned. See for example the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, where Congress removed the president and elected a replacement. It's a minefield of OR. TFD (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and file an WP:ANI to curtail further WP:GAMING Given the blatant and extensive history of venue shopping, and per WP:MULTI, WP:GAMING, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTHERE, let's call this elephant in the room what it is: Jan.6th denialism posing as a wikipedia-debate pushing an agenda. According the RS and secondary RS, 6 January was a coup attempt, period. Yes, pro-fringe-types have deliberately attempted to muddy the waters in the hopes of censoring the RSes, in service of the 2020 coup attempt and the anti-democratic efforts in America still in motion. The definition of a "coup" (an attempt to illegitimately gain or retain power by force), is why the RSes are calling it that. To question them is WP:OR, period. It's not a coincidence, but incriminating that a certain editor here was just released from a previous TBAN for similar such disruptive WP:soapboxing and WP:gaming, especially given that he/she hasn't just crossed the line in the sand for WP:STICK this time around, but has made it a point to stomp up and down on it. How about we don't anymore. 71.211.141.234 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and agree with statements that is an attempt to hold a referendum through forum shopping. Andrevan@ 05:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What other forum do you have in mind? This RFC is basically about what the list criteria and the headings should be, not what items satisfy the list criteria or belong under each heading. I have no firm opinion about which heading 1/6 would go under, and that issue wouldn’t be decided (or even influenced) by this RFC. This page certainly seems like the best place to discuss what the list criteria and headings should be. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Brainstorming here . . . what if we omit all attempts? Part of the problem with "attempt" is it's inherently difficult to define. For example, we have an article on the July 20 plot, and we also list it in this article. But might all of the List of assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler reasonably be considered coup attempts? Could they all be included? It gets sticky. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Sticky" or not, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, covering failed coups is part of the mission, we can't just omit them. It's really not that hard -- RSes universally refer to Operation Valkyrie an a coup attempt, not just an assassination attempt. Feoffer (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Include if and only if the event in question can be called a "coup" or "coup attempt" in WikiVoice. If we don't have enough to do that, we should leave it out. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Adoring nanny, I would support this if there is not sufficient support for the steps described in the RFC question. I think others have made similar suggestions above (e.g. User:Seraphimblade. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it's time for someone to derail this thread again, since there's been a workable solution for weeks but nobody wanted to do it. Everything from the published dataset is in the table. Other sources go at the bottom if attributed by RS. I filled it out to 2004 with material from the current article and a few sources from the CDP manual, but as you can see there is a lot that you are missing and quite a few that the CDP do not consider coups by their criteria. One important thing to do is to convey the CDP's definitions for the dataset without just being a close paraphrase. The dataset is CC-BY, and the Codebook (from which I lifted all the definition text in the draft) is listed as part of the dataset with the same DOI, but the definitions could still be tightened a little more since it's a long section. And obviously the rest of the table needs to be filled. Also, it's organized most-recent-first because 1) that's the priority that readers are more likely to want, and 2) the data are much more complete with recency. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I love the idea of incorporating CDP data into the list, but I wouldn't go so far as to just make the article into a table that just mirrors the CDP data. The CDP data is not exhaustive, nor could it ever be. Being absent from the CDP data doens't automatically imply an event isn't a coup RSes are still RSes. Additionally, lists and prose are a lot easier for readers than tables. It looks like your draft would be "Table of coups according to the Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project" or something more precise that excludes ancient events. Feoffer (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you scroll to the bottom? Also, the whole point of datasets like CDP is to be exhaustive for the time period that they set. If the goal is to set some criteria, then they and others who have done these datasets get every coup that would fit those criteria. If you read their guide you'll see also how they check for subjective bias. The alternative, relying on just whomever to come in with whatever RS they want, is that you have an enormous quantity of coups that are omitted, and the coups that are included all are evaluated on different terms. I also don't see how having a table in which a reader can sort by country, date, and classification(s) is somehow less easy to read through than 400-some paragraphs.

Anyway, I think you might have just looked at the top of the article and then exited: one part of the article is the dataset, and the other is for coups outside the dataset, where anybody can add anything with RSes. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

oh, I misunderstood to think you were going to replace the entire artlce with the table. If you're just adding a table, not deleting a list, then full speed ahead! The CDP data is a valuable addition! Feoffer (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Editors are free to keep improving to the draft page, but there's still the easy possibility that the RfC result will be a free-for-all list or just deletion, and any big change to the page in the meantime will definitely get reverted, so it's really up to you guys to at least agree that there has to be one section that is based on fixed academic criteria. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Concerns about "attempted coup"

Seems the use of the phrase "attempted coup" in this and related articles requires "WP:CONSENSUS" - adding "this edit" (also, see copy below) has been "reverted" due to a lack of "WP:CONSENSUS" - there has not been "Consensus" for removing the edit either - nonetheless - a "WP:CONSENSUS" discussion is sought.

"Seems quoting an official USA Congressional Select Committee authority source, Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, at one of the highest government levels currently active in the USA government today, and as reported by one of the world's foremost Reliable Sources, The New York Times, is a good faith and sufficient edit addition regarding the use of the phrase, "attempted coup"." - Drbogdan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

My Edit Addition - Copied from the "List of coups and coup attempts" article:

• 2021 American coup attempt: On 6 January, former President Trump attempted a coup attempt based on testimony by Chairman Bennie Thompson of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. According to Thompson, “Jan. 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup, a brazen attempt, as one rioter put it shortly after Jan. 6, to overthrow the government ... The violence was no accident. It represents Trump’s last stand, most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power.” Trump, according to the committee, "lied to the American people, ignored all evidence refuting his false fraud claims, pressured state and federal officials to throw out election results favoring his challenger, encouraged a violent mob to storm the Capitol and even signaled support for the execution of his own vice president." The panel also noted that Mr. Trump, by promoting a seven-part conspiracy, attempted to overturn a free and fair democratic election.

References

CONSENSUS QUESTION: The use of the phrase "attempted coup" is acceptable to use in this and related article(s)?

Agree

(All who agree, list your comments here; see below Oppose/Neutral.)

1. Agree. Please see my opening comments described in detail above - Thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Agree, but reword as it's duplicative and awkward. Here's a streamlined version (with American date format):
   • "2021 American coup attempt: On January 6, 2021, then-president Trump attempted a coup according to testimony by Chairman Bennie Thompson of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
     • @Valjean: - Yes - I *entirely* agree with your improvements and better wording - Thank You - Drbogdan (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
       • Want to take a crack at it then? Not sure how to work this tweak in? Surely sounds better. Makofakeoh (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
3. Agree between the congressional sources and the numerous actual charges of sedition, this language is weak but acceptable. In addition, wikipedia must be able to discern critically important sources and outcomes from a mere quantitative measure of sources using the word "coup." It is this lack of critical capacity that results in so much systemic bias on wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
4. Agree between the congressional sources and the numerous actual charges of sedition, this language is acceptable and backed by multiple sources pouring in, echoing said language. Makofakeoh (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
5. Agree, as Thompson is speaking in his official capacity as chair. Also, the numbering got broke by the comments above, but I do not know how to fix it. Zaathras (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
6. Agree (but think this is malformed) This Not-Vote poll begins with a specific example (fine) and then asks a generic question (also fine) but putting the two together confuses what issue is really being presented here. So far as the generic question goes, per Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Content_policies of course it is fine to include "attempted coups" here, so long as any given entry is supported by adequate RS. As for listing January 6 as an attempted coup, besides the Chairman's remarks, great value I believe is found in the expert opinion of NATO intelligence agencies outside the USNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
   • Adding related detailed reference noted above - seems better - and clearer - Drbogdan (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
7. Agree, the facts, the Congressional sources, the news, and the many actual indictments of sedition in the courts justify its inclusion. This language is appropriate and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeWashington (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
8. UPDATE (I already agreed above) The 2021 Trump coup isn't an "alleged" coup any more. The house committee subpoenaed records from Trump's adviser John Eastman, who tried to refuse and sued the commitee in federal court. Thompson was the lead defendant in Eastman vs Thompson et al. In handing down its ruling the court declared the Eastman/Trump "campaign" to be a "coup in search of a legal theory". Thompson was one of the victors in this litigation, and he made his televised remarks roughly 10 weeks after the court ruled. So it wasn't just his opinion. It's federal law, until that case is overturned. I tweaked the article accordingly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC) PS.... I just learned that on the day of the ruling, Thompson read the key paragraph of the ruling into the committee hearing record. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
9. Agree Reliable sources are referring to this as an attempted coup. ShaveKongo (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Agree. A month ago I reviewed the top Google News hits, and at that time a slight majority of Reliable Sources were holding back from directly calling it an attempted coup in their own voice. I had actually begun drafting a borderline-oppose vote, noting that sources would need to be re-evaluated in the near future. I just repeated that search today, and I now find a preponderance of Reliable Sources are directly calling it an attempted coup. I would suggest that some of the 'oppose' votes may be out of date.
   I see every indication that the accumulation of information on the event, and the percolation of information, is resulting in a progressive crystallization among sources to directly call it a coup attempt. I also see indications that academics and other slow RS are inclined to come down on the same result. If this RFC does not close on an affirmative result, I expect it will be appropriate and likely necessary to re-evaluate the available sourcing again in the near future. Alsee (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

(All who oppose the decision, list your comments below.)

1. Oppose. The introduction to this RFC is based on a false premise. Consensus must exist to include statements, not remove them, according to WP:BURDEN. Points to consider:
   • It is WP:TOOSOON. Not a single one of the sources based on events of this week call the Jan 6 attack a "coup" in their own narrative voice, and neither should we. Doing so violates WP:WIKIVOICE part of our NPOV policy. All sources are reporting how a some politicians have characterized the event, and the word "coup" or "attempted coup" are always quoted, not stated as fact.
   • In fact, a search of the newspapers.com archive for 2022 shows that articles containing the words "trump capitol insurrection" outnumber articles containing "trump capitol coup" by a factor of 8. There is no consensus in the sources for "coup" yet, and no evidence has been presented that this is how sources are characterizing it. They are quoting the opinions of others.
   • In rebuttal to the comment of User:Valjean, quoting a Democrat politician isn't meaningful, as most Democrats in Congress probably would characterize it as a coup. Politicians produce political opinions. That's just what they do. Wikipedia shouldn't be parroting the political views of politicians (as some politicians' views are demonstrably false, such as "election was stolen").
   • This article doesn't rely on quotes from politicians anywhere else, so why make an exception here? Wikipedia should state what sources state as objective facts, and when sources describe it in their own voice, they tend not to use the term "coup".
   • That said, my personal preference is to call it an attempted coup, but my personal preference is irrelevant. I hope someone can come up with policy-grounded reasons to include the phrase. I'm just not seeing it based on looking at the sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose Reliable sources policy says, "The reliability of a source depends on context." For a claim of this nature, we would need to show that it is the consensus opinion among experts. That probably will not be formed until all the evidence has been heard and a full picture is available. TFD (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose We need to await further clarity from reliable sources, especially neutral histories in book form. Not every alleged attempted coup is an actual attempted coup. Moreover, it remains unclear whether this particular episode was allegedly a self-coup attempt or not. There is no urgency to attach labels to this event, as the event can be described without labels at 2021 United States Capitol attack. Additionally, an alleged attempted coup does not become an actual attempted coup merely because one congressman says so (“On 6 January, former President Trump attempted a coup attempt based on testimony by Chairman Bennie Thompson….”). Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It's worth emphasizing that the dictum of a judge is not a reliable secondary source, and is only a reliable primary source for the fact that the judge said it. Moreover, an academic article on the subject is here. In case you cannot access that scholarship, one of the authors (Erica de Bruin) says on Twitter, “The forum begins with an introduction by @prof_powell & @poliscisbh, which traces how scholars have defined coups over time. It notes that Jan 6 does not fit, & emphasizes some limitations of the narrower definition of coups scholars have adopted in recent years.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've read the entire collection of essays and I am collecting my thoughts on these and other Jan6/coup-related RSs at my sandbox two, anyone interested can see my full critique of the Powell paper, but the chief criticism that is relevant here is that Poweell and coauthor analyzed actions of the capitol attackers as a discrete, stand-alone thing, separate and apart from anything Trump did before or after. The papers were published before the Jan 6 committee introduced the concept of Trump's 7-part plan. The attempted self-coup was the whole kit-and-kaboodle and Powell's paper did not assess anything other than the discrete part carved out in isolation, as though it had nothing to do with anything else. Metaphorically, its like Bob buys land, surveys, excavates, pours a foundation, builds a frame, and throws a plywood deck across the roof. Then invites lots of people to show up with shingles nails and hammers. Bob gives a speech about the love of roofing then goes home. John and Jane Doe run out and lay shingles on the roofdeck. A professor comes along, notes the flat and impervious surfaces, but says the flat impervious surfaces are not a "house". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Oppose The article linked to by NewsandEventsGuy says, "Some among America's military allies believe Trump deliberately attempted a coup and may have had help from federal law-enforcement officials." (I italicized key words.) Mr. Thompson said there was an attempted coup, but that's his opinion. We don't have RSs confirming his opinion. It's important we not call it a coup or coup attempt in Wikipedia's own voice. YoPienso (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(A) For an RS, I used the official press release from his US House committee containing a transcript of his words, which is RS for fact he said that. We can include such things provided we give inline attribution if its debatable, see WP:LISTCRIT, so our article doesn't say it was a coup it says Thompson said it was a coup. Some are complaining that the title and/or lead to this article converts Thompson's opinion into a wikivoice statement. I think the argument is weak but has enough merit I've raised a need to review our compliance with list guideliness (see later subsection this talk page). (B) You quoted some editors word choice for the headline to an article, describing non US-intelligence people advising their respective governments that it was a coup attempt. In my view, professional intelligence briefings in non-US nations should be given a lot of WP:WEIGHT. BTW, did you read the article or just the headline? (C) We are also starting to see the academic professional literature describe Jan 6 as a coup. I've started adding some of those refs at Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election (D) I came back later and struck out B, as I may have made too much of this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm striking my comment about the article you linked to but have now removed. Yes, I did read it, and wondered if you had! This was the day after the event when people were saying the Capitol Police had assisted the rioters. A few were indeed too friendly with selfies, etc., but by now we know the police were not in cahoots with Trump. I haven't seen any evidence that Trump directly did anything to organize the riot. He's not an organizer, but a gusher of wild words. He seemed to have been pleasantly surprised at the effect of his reckless words. YoPienso (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• No, not here. A section near the bottom "Debatable events" would be a good place for this, and also serve as a place for similar situations if they come up.

I think it's creep to include debatable events in the main line. Even if the body text gives both sides, bulleted placement in the main line conveys a message and an opinion.

I want to hear what Kevin McCarthy, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and other people of former or current high office have to say. If they almost all say "coup", then we can too. I haven't heard that yet. My personal opinion of these people is... very very low. However, my personal opinion counts for exactly zero and so does yours. The American people 330,000,000 strong have, thru their democratic process, granted these people very high standing. Yes they are biased politicians, but it's not like they were actual participants, in which case they might not have standing.

1/6 is very different from, let us say, 2010 Nigerien coup d'état etc. For one thing, AFAIK only a very small minority of non-participant observers with standing, if any, have denied that this was basically a coup. For another, this involved organized bodies of actual uniformed soldiers or organized paramilitary armed with proper military equipment such as crewed weapons, operating under orders from a command structure, with a formal operation plan drafted by actual military officers. That is not necessary for an event to be called a coup, but it is sufficient and characterizes the good majority of coups. 6/1 lacks that sufficiency, and in fact has none of these, so we have do dig down, and the debatability goes from near zero to a good deal higher.

That makes it a different kind of event, different enough from a sky-is-blue coup that its not a service to the reader to mix them together. Thus, a new "Debatable events" or whatever title is what we want for 1/6. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Re your 3rd paragraph, if they have logical reasoning/critical thinking reasons.... using evidence-based facts.... to analyze Trump's overall Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and conclude it was not a coup, then I'd want to hear it too. But I'm not interested in partisan table pounding where they are just trying to frame the issue because that would be creating prohibited WP:FALSEBALANCE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A separate section clearly titled something like “other claimed coups or attempted coups” would be fine, with an introductory sentence explaining why they’re listed separately (e.g. explaining that sometimes the claims are more reliable and verifiable than what is claimed). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Pending working out the details in a mutually agreed way, I could live with a separate section.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes - but if this seemingly rag-tag group of rioters (and/or mob), without fomal military uniforms or plan, had been successful and the Biden presidency was thwarted as a result, the USA government would look a lot different than it now does I would think - hence, this seems to be an attempt to overthrow the government, an attempted coup, at least afaik atm - incidentally, this particular type of government overthrow, and/or attempted coup, seems to have happened earlier - at least in part - and more successfully - in Russian history (see the "Decembrist revolt" of the early 1800s) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Well I don't think that. Taken all by itself - in isolation - the attack was something other than a coup. The thing that makes it a coup attempt, according to most sources at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election is Trumps overall package effort, of which Jan 6 was an element, but not the whole thing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose RfC is written in a non-neutral way. See WP:RFCBRIEF. This is itself a reason to oppose. Furthermore, the rationale fails WP:WIKIVOICE. Statements from individuals on one side of the controversy should not be taken as dispositive. Instead, I suggest we follow WP:WIKIVOICE and describe the controversy where relevant. Not sure, whether, or to what extent, that would work in this particular list. But surely there are appropriate places where it would work. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

(All users neutral about the issue, list your comments below.)

1. Neutral. State why.

End of consensus discussion about using the phrase "attempted coup" in this and related article(s) - Drbogdan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at RS noticeboard

I have started a notice board discussion here subtitled “Is Congressman Thompson or any congressperson an RS?” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, and probably helpful in its own way. However, the sources are making this direct claim; with their own reporting and analysis too, see for instance and they are not simply parroting a Congressman but offering a thoughtful take.

Otherwise, by your logic, every source is wrongheaded- since any source in some sense could be mislabeled as the opinion of one biased person or another.

I re-read WP:V and the multiple sources backing up this claim are more than satisfactory. Plus the event itself happened a year ago, so the bipartisan panel is now delivering its non-partisan objective findings. Maybe you don't like it, but that saying, you can have your own set of opinions but not your own set of facts.

Then, of course, there is the truth itself, for what it is worth to you- that Trump did indeed try to steal the 2021 election and attempt a violent coup (e.g. encouraging his own VP to be hanged, amongst other glaring incriminating facts in the matter.)

Contentious as this all may be, with the coup attempt a year ago and all the reporting and forensic investigations against it since then (not to mention the arrests) it is more than appropriate to start saying it like it is as the press is now doing without hesitancy. You wanted my thoughts. There they are. Makofakeoh (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• Added related detailed reference noted above - seems beter - and clearer - Drbogdan (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Until the panel votes in favor of a statement listing their findings of fact, there ARE no official "findings". Just statements on the record, but they can change before they finally take a vote on the bottom line. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

This is not a direct claim: “the panel offered new information about what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by Mr. Trump that culminated in the deadly assault on the Capitol.” It may turn out that it was an attempted coup, but we need valid sourcing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

More differing views

Today in Politico, round table

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/19/jan-6-coup-authoritarianism-expert-roundtable-00052281 2600:1001:B113:771E:2DC3:1F32:5EA0:E113 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC List Criteria - NAEG version 3

housekeeping note..... "NAEG" means me, for short. For archive research I made two prior attempts to resolve this with proposals under headings "List Criteria Part 1" and "List Criteria Part 2". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

PROPOSAL .... To add Template:List criteria to the talkpage header, as stated in the template documentation, and include the following statement of list criteria:

To be included on this list in WP:WIKIVOICE, the event must have been described as a coup or coup attempt by the majority of historians commenting in the available WP:Reliable sources. Other events may be included with regard to due WP:WEIGHT and using WP:INTEXT attribution if (A) the event included physical violence and (B) a significant portion of WP:NOTABLE commenters have described the event as a coup or coup attempt.

Advantages

• Establishes list criteria without introducing any new vocabularly to enter the WikiLawyer lexicon.
• Uses Template:List criteria to document the consensus
• This proposal is formatted in expectation we will be asking an uninvolved ed to determine consensus and do non-admin closure.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Poll

Please have mercy on the closing ed and put all the discussion in the "discussion" section, after this one.

• Support (as proposer)... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Tentative support, lots of new text, but nothing jumps out as objectionable, and nothing in comments at this time raises concerns. Feoffer (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:RS, “Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available….” That should be an explicit requirement here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• My vote was adequately expressed in the discussion below, but my contribution to the discussion has since been sectioned off from the poll entirely. Additionally, I noticed some unusual changes in the WP list guidelines during the course of this poll, but that was probably my imagination. Regardless, at the beginning of our discussion we established that "one" counts as a majority, and exclusion is not a negative, So this is effectively the union of all historical datasets and all historians who have ever characterized in any way an event as a coup. On top of that, "notable commentators" and violence can override historians and definitions as well, just in case we're not mocking the scholarship enough. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As I have contributed changes to MOS, NOTABILITY, and STAND-ALONE list guideline, I presume you're refering to my work as "unusual". But my repeated edit summaries said I was trying to document actual existing practice, so before hinting at anything nefarious please join those discussions to point out ways I may have inadvertanty suggested changes to existing practice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. We include an event if the NPOV_prevailing_view / preponderance_of_RS call it a coup or attempted coup. I find three problems with the proposed text. (1) While a pile of historians would be ideal, we do not need to break out a special case for them. (2) Attribution should not be mandatory if we are presenting the NPOV prevailing view. (3) "significant portion of WP:NOTABLE commenters" is potentially over-inclusive. It is also significantly more ambiguous than prevailing-NOV. "Significant portion" is a far wider field for argument. Alsee (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Historians are not the only ones to write about a coup, and should not be the only sources used on the list. Dimadick (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Tintinkien (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• support obviously a better option than simply counting news sources. Especially given the proliferation of right wing news sites. We should rely on the experts. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• To the CLOSER... if anyone objects on the basis that something is missing, please treat it as approval of this first part that is not missing. If we can at least implement the part we agree on, at the closing you can remind them that WP:Consensus can change and they are welcome to start a new RFC to make further tweaks. But we really need to get unstuck from the quagmire here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Reasons for Oppose. Any violent event in the world could be included in this list so long as "a significant portion of WP:NOTABLE commenters have described the event as a coup or coup attempt." A consensus of reliable sources is drastically different from the proposed "significant portion of notable commenters" (the links in this sentence are to Wikipedia policies). Moreover, a "significant portion" could be a small minority. Additionally, limiting the pool to "commenters" (instead of all reliable sources) would apparently leave out all the reliable sources and other notable pundits and notable partisans who describe an event without using or commenting about the word "coup". Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The consensus policy refers to a consensus among editors so that phrasing is nonsensical; and my word "commenters" means - obviously - RSs so the words can be tweaked to make the obvious blindlingly unassailable. Meanwhile, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE guard against your implied concern that just any random handful of notable hacks can call something a coup and get on this list. I'm not going to just do a WP:REHASH so I don't anticipate making further responses to you, unless you come up with a genuinely new argument. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s not nonsensical. Per WP:RS, “Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available….” So the concept of consensus at Wikipedia isn’t limited to consensus among editors. If you think “commenters” means RS’s, then why not cross out the former and write the latter? Do you think congresspersons and federal district court judges and CNN pundits are all “random” notable “hacks”? If not, then your reassurances about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are empty. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

would apparently leave out ... notable pundits and notable partisans who describe an event without using or commenting about the word "coup". You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Every coup has a faction of partisans who argue for its legitimacy, that's why RSes like CDP are important. Feoffer (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I understood notable “commenters” in this proposal to include notable pundits and notable partisans who describe an event as a "coup". Apparently that’s not what the OP meant (he says “my word ‘commenters’ means - obviously - RSs”). Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

ADDITION TO ADDRESS THIS OBJECTION

To be included on this list in WP:WIKIVOICE, the event must have been described as a coup or coup attempt by the majority of historians commenting in the available WP:Reliable sources. Other events may be included with regard to due WP:WEIGHT and using WP:INTEXT attribution if (A) the event included physical violence and (B) a significant portion of WP:NOTABLE commenters in the available WP:Reliable sources have described the event as a coup or coup attempt.

easily updated to use redundancy to make explicit what had been implied. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Do those "notable commenters in the available reliable sources" include non-scholars who are reliable only as to whether they have said what the RS attributes to them? Certainly the language you're proposing is broad enough to include such people. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

A reasonable question and easily answered. For example, the notable Alyssa Milano says it was coup[4], but I trust the good judgment of involved editors to realize she's a little out of her area of expertise and so give her opinion on the subject very little WP:WEIGHT. So we already have all the guidelines we need to deal with the problem, and if anyone gets silly trying to force a silly perspective, we have the toolks of WP:Dispute resolution or in a last resort, ANI/AE procedures and rules like WP:GAMING and WP:FILIBUSTER. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: FWIW, whatever the closer of this RFC rules? I'll abide by it :) GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Well sure, and thanks for saying so although it is sort of superfluous... everyone here is presumably willing to do that because if they are not a TBAN is almost surely in their future. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternative based on CDP definition

• If one research group on coups publishes a dataset that they say includes Jan 6, but every previous research group on coups published datasets that would exclude Jan 6 (among many others within both datasets, so we don't have to take their word or extrapolate), then is the latter not the majority of historians? Remember, these are specialists on the subject of coups. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

No dataset is exhaustive; Absence from a dataset should never be interpreted as exclusion without an explicit source saying that. Inclusion for Jan 6 is met by CDP statement plus others RSes. Feoffer (talk)

The datasets we've discussed take a fixed set of criteria and a fixed timeframe and try to classify every coup in that timeframe. Anything recorded in public records that they omit is them saying that such an event does not meet their criteria, if they did their job correctly, which peer review and subsequent studies should verify. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Anything recorded in public records that they omit is them saying that such an event does not meet their criteria I don't think the authors would agree with you. "Anything in the public record"??? That's absurd. They're authors, not omniscience. Silence on an issue doesn't imply exclusion -- exclusions have explanations of why critera was not met, for example. Feoffer (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, things are excluded because criteria aren't met. Do you expect every published dataset to include explanations of literally every Lexis search they did and detail the reasoning behind every event they discarded? They do however detail their bias-checking and reliability tests. And CDP's use of post-war public sources gives them a roughly constant number of coups per year since 1946, and similar results have been seen for the other postwar datasets, so I don't know why you think public records can't be thoroughly searched. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite any coups currently in this article that you believe were "excluded" by CDP after examination? Just to make sure we're not debating How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. Feoffer (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Lots of historians are not dataset keepers but nonetheless analyze and comment on specific events while others are focused on understanding events through our word choices and definitions compared to event characteristics. Their views matter too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure they do. Naunihal Singh is a great example. I do think you should ask whether you'd argue for the same editorial criteria for this article if it meant your preference regarding Jan 6 inclusion would never be met. I'm not sure how critical any one coup is in an article that currently begins counting at the dawn of humanity. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This RFC is about general List Criteria. Would you like to collaborate on that topic? Seems like you're trying to make this about other editors intentions or hyperfixate on Jan 6. Neither digression are helpful. I do thank you for the piece by Singh. I'll add it to my research notes (you may visit at User:NewsAndEventsGuy/111 Coup label research notes and comments and I'd welcome additional sources at the associated talk page)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I literally posted a new draft article, with CDP criteria and their dataset on a table and non-CDP-but-RS cases underneath, or didn't you see? How am I not being constructive? It seems to me I'm the only one so far to literally "construct" a solution. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize this comment [5] was telling us about your userspace draft, but glad we got it cleared up at that drafts talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

if it meant your preference regarding Jan 6 inclusion would never be met. Jan 6 discussion is a total redherring, it's inclusion is met under any standard under discussion. Nobody's talking about cutting it from the list, we're trying to hone explanatory language. If our explanatory language suggests Jan 6 should be excluded, that language will be adjusted to a more expansive definition. Just to be frank with you so you don't get misled about what's under discussion. Feoffer (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

”If our explanatory language suggests Jan 6 should be excluded, that language will be adjusted to a more expansive definition.” That puts the cart before the horse 🐎. We need to have selection criteria that comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines first and foremost regardless of outcome. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Just being honest; Jan 6 isn't a borderline case like 2016 Montenegrin coup allegations. RSes are clear, and nobody's going to be adopting a definition that excludes it. Feoffer (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

So let's just make this clear. Instead of deciding beforehand on criteria such as, say, that historians who specialize on researching coups should be the RS for inclusion (for modern history), you would rather not commit to any such criteria in advance if it were to possibly mean that one particular point of data is excluded. I'm not sure if you saw my comment far above just before the header "Rail line ends here". Also, we should consider if we really want to keep that "military science" category. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I know the four of us in this discussion aren't going to get to redefine the word coup for Wikipedia so as to exclude Jan 6. RSes including CDP declare it a coup, people have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. WP:V is met. It's out of our hands. Feoffer (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m not even going to research until we have proper list criteria. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The first problem with this approach is that it just chooses CDP's definitions of coups while other scholars advocate other definitions. So we don't have a "consensus of scholarly research" on what is/isn't a "coup". The second problem is that the draft first covers things under CDP's definition and then includes "coups from other sources" without establishing any list criteria for what can be included under "coups from other sources". If we did achieve consensus on the latter, we'd also need a consensus to carve out the first group described under the CDP section, and I'm having a hard time guessing what NPOV rationale could bifurcate coups into CDP-labeled coups and nonCDP-labeled coups. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The choice of CDP is based on a couple things: first, it's the most inclusive dataset by design, encompassing and expanding the criteria of the previous coup datasets they cite (some of the same ones we found when we were looking into it at first too, btw -- people were complaining that certain coups would be excluded). They include auto-coups and conspiracies, and give every coup a basic classification along those lines. Second, and arguably most importantly, unlike previous academic studies, this one will be updated as an ongoing project (It's on version 2 now). I don't see what the issue of bifurcation is -- anything that's classified by CDP goes in the CDP section, while anything that's not in the dataset but has RS goes below it. The criteria for what's below the dataset... can be whatever you want honestly because you're currently evaluating coups since the dawn of civilization -- objective standards are out the window already. However, I'd say a restriction to academic RS is warranted. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If we’re seeking scholarly consensus about what goes into this list, and the leading scholarly list authorities use somewhat different definitions of the word “coup” to come up with their lists, then the parts of the definition that most of them have in common will be the scholarly consensus and will account for the overlapping parts of their lists. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's sensible -- a scenario in the physical sciences might be illustrative: Dr. A has a model of a phenomenon for crystals in vacuum; Dr. B refines that model to crystals in an ideal gas without appreciable loss of generality; Dr. C further refines it to crystals in a general kinetic gas, again without appreciable loss of generality. Dr. C's theory can thus model everything that A and B can with roughly the same usefulness in any case. But by your reasoning the consensus would be in the intersection of the theories, which would be that of Dr. A.

Now you may point out I was hinting at some similar reasoning about intersecting consensus earlier (toward the start of that new section heading), but that was a thought experiment to try to separate out from the discussion the notion that the suitability of criteria should be a priori dependent on their inclusion of one single event in a list of hundreds. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

When doctors-of-science-history E and F report that all this work was done and resulted in a widely-used consensus X, then we can hang our hat on X. Until then, we need reasonable list criteria that measly humble Wikipedia editors can work with, while avoiding POV and OR. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there evidence that Dr. A and Dr. B agree that Dr. C did better than them? I don’t see any evidence that the various compilers of coup lists have agreed that one of them did a better job than the others. Even putting aside what they think of each other, there are coup scholars who aren’t in the list compiling business; have they said one of the list compilers did the best job? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't suppose you think papers are that self-congratulatory (ok, Powell & Thyne's review cites Powell & Thyne a lot), but there are a couple who have nice things to say about Cline WJC 2016, Berlin et al 2022. The one everyone loves to mention is Powell and Thyne 2011, because that's the first global dataset, but it's the equivalent of Dr. A above -- out of date and completely superseded. The other big dataset that gets cited in the literature is Marshall & Marshall aka CSP aka Polity IV. Powell himself links to CSP on Twitter, but you can find it yourself if you care.

To be clear, there's no reason we can't use two datasets on the same table (just put a checkmark if it's in dataset A or B or both). Our lists of countries by economic data use three separate datasets, for comparison (and even though papers get published doing more accurate single-case calculations of say the GDP of a particular country, that don't let any of that in). The reason we don't use CSP, which more or less continues on the guidelines of Powell & Thyne, is because, like I said before, there were a lot of complaints about inclusion. And to be clear, in my literature review, nobody said Cline was too inclusive, which actually shocked the hell out of me, because I think it is. Not sure if I linked the paper, but one of them gives examples of what they consider to be too loose of criteria (such that it intersected civil wars and popular uprisings), which Cline did not fit. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Powell doesn’t seem to think his work is obsolete.[6] Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, did you read the paper? Did you review the literature? Did you read the Twitter thread? He cited Marshall & Marshall in the paper and cited CDP and CSP in the thread even. He never claimed his work was ongoing. The paper he linked to -- his paper -- it's an important paper, sure, but it was part of his Ph.D. thesis, so even though the dataset is still cross-checked regularly by researchers the paper's part of this guy's primitive research years. He's talking about it because it's what gave him a name. I just don't understand what point you're trying to make. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

At that thread I just linked, Powell wrote “We provide a simplified definition of ‘illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive.’ This builds on decades of scholarship, is used in hundreds of studies, and is close to other coup definitions.” Say what you will about the 1/6 rioters, they were not elites within the state apparatus. My understanding is that Cline is currently using a different definition that’s producing vastly different results, not just as to 1/6, but also as to alleged incidents where the alleged plotters were all acquitted (the alleged Sri Lanka 1966 "bathroom coup"). I am admittedly not an expert about any of this, but there seems to be some very weird stuff going on here. As a lay person in this area, I cannot think of many things as destabilizing to governments worldwide as promiscuous use of the word “coup”, so we should be sure that Cline is really universally revered before we use it as the sole authority here. Also, please note that Powell’s project seems to be ongoing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the ongoing dataset, as everything I had found was linked back to their old websites and journal replication data. Their codebook is dated 2011 (as is the paper they say to cite), so they're definitely using their original criteria for this site and not the updated criteria in the paper you linked previously. That sort of makes sense in that, as I've noted, their work seems to be universally regarded as the starting point for accumulating coup data over a wide space and time. This is weird though because the site says to cite the 2011 paper for using the dataset, but of course if you're using a dataset updated to 2022 you should say that, and none of the literature I saw did so (they all claimed to cross-check on P&T's -2010 dataset).

I don't understand why you think this is weird though. In the literature different researchers are restricting their datasets of coups for different purposes. For example there are several papers specializing only in military coups, and so excluded enormous amounts of data from P&T and others. P&T restrict themselves to events that can reasonably be classified under a uniform category of coup -- that is, not distinguished by qualifiers in their dataset (except for success/failure). That kind of straightforward criteria is important for a lot of research on, say, long-term coup prevalence, where for most states under question N>1. CDP (and CSP to a lesser extent) take the approach of having a more inclusive dataset but including more qualifiers -- conspiracy, auto, etc. -- which makes it more useful when analyzing finer time scales or more subtle types of instability, or for other researchers, simply getting a more formalized understanding of the popular and political conception of the term "coup".

Originally, if you check way at the top of this thread, I had proposed just using the P&T dataset as the basis for this list. Again, we can have a checklist of the major datasets in the literature without a problem. But there's nothing wrong with looking at the literature and saying, for the purposes of a Wikipedia table or list (a data visualization), we will take this particular set as the most useful/appropriate default key for us. (Again, lists of economics data: do they look at IMF, UN, and WB datasets and go, "well, we can't make a reasonable choice to make one a default sort over the others, so let's nuke the list instead."? SamuelRiv (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m absolutely not suggesting to nuke our list or Cline’s list or any list. All I’m suggesting is that our list should be based on areas of agreement (i.e. consensus) between most of the scholarly lists. Most of them seem to require that “coups” be launched by an elite group within the state apparatus. I don’t know if scholars who say so are doing that because of consistency and bookkeeping, instead of larger reasons about muddling important distinctions, but perhaps their reasons shouldn’t matter to us. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There's lots of papers that do analyses based on whether something is in practice a coup or is not, and if they allow qualification it's attempted/successful. Then there are those who look at coup events with any number of qualifications, usually for cataloguing or perhaps a less mathematical analysis (since N is so low). For the former papers, they all say something along the lines of, 'we exclude auto-coups, conspiracies, etc.'. Those authors may say in some form or another at some point that auto-coups aren't "real coups", or something along those lines. The point is not whether this reflects some established sociological or statistical distinction (it clearly doesn't since the 'hard' cutoff varies in literally every dataset), but that those in the mainstream doing the same research produce datasets that will include and categorize anything characterized as a type of coup, whether or not it's a "real coup" for the purpose of a particular paper or assay. I mean, do you really want to have a banner at the top of the page that has to break down how auto-coups aren't "real coups" and can't be listed? I really don't care what criteria or dataset gets used, but I'm trying to keep things realistic. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Academia, like any business, has its factions. I could not care less if a given person cheer-leads for one team or the other. What I do care about is the literature as a whole, and the current state of the literature has a great deal of questions and debate. So us humble Wikipedia editors need a statement of list criteria we can work with until the professional/academic dust settles. I submit that my current RFC proposal provides such criteria, and nothing in this alternative's discussion even hints at a problem with that formulation NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - We should clarify what a "coup attempt" is? The military didn't attempt to overthrow the US Government on January 6, 2021. Democracy wasn't in danger, when you compare it to the fact that the USA survived a Civil War, Two World Wars, Korean War, Vietnam War, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The current lead explains what successful ones look like, so it should be beyond obvious that trying to pull such a thing off and failing is a mere "attempt". How is this not an example of classic..... "duh"...... deserving a Template:trout ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be 'or' has been a dispute about whether or not the events of January 6, 2021 in the USA, belong on this article. Anyways, thanks for not using 'f-bombs', in your response. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

well who gives a rat's ass about this event or that event? If we are going to have a stand-alone list that survives AFD, it is required to have unambiguous list inclusion criteria. Do you have input on forming consensus over list inclusion criteria? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

TBH, I find the atmosphere a tad intimidating, to give input on the topic-in-general, if some may disagree with my position. Therefore, I'm going to walk away from the topic-in-general. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You cannot -- none of us can -- expect to have the necessary background information, judgment, and experience to edit all topics. I don't edit medical topics, asian history, etc etc. Your decision to step away perhaps reflects a newfound self-awareness, and if so that's constructive. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Specifico. Now, Please let me leave in peace. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You said you were leaving in peace and walking away, so we all wish you farewell I am sure -- until such time as you return. Adios. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep provoking me & I just might stick around. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion of article improvement, not for personal fulfilment. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Knock it off. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Nor should Wikipedians need to possess sufficient fortitude to endure an intimidating atmosphere. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

In my view, everyone (including both you and me) care a great deal about US politics in real life, and the fact that we care (even if we are on opposite sides) is worthy of celebration. But then we come down from the lofty heights of our opinions on US politics to the nuts and bolts and mundane drudgery of Wikipedia P&G, where we are confronted with this article and the requirement to articulate list inclusion criteria. And so here we are. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion re list inclusion criteria? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Who are you asking your '17:39 UTC' question to? Me or the other fellow. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I had you in mind, but I would guess that it is equally applicable to everyone participating in the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS says we should follow scholarly consensus if available. Some current scholars require that something is a “coup” only if the perpetrators are part of the state apparatus. Other current scholars take a broader view. The consensus seems like the area of overlap, so we should probably list only coups that a consensus of scholarly coup-listers consider to be coups. Whatever we do, the lead (not just a talk page template) should explain what we’re doing and why. I think this would be an excellent source for us to cite:

“ <ref>Marsteintredet, Leiv and Malamud, Andrés. “[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0032321719888857 Coup with Adjectives: Conceptual Stretching or Innovation in Comparative Research]”, [[Political Studies (journal)|Political Studies]] Vol. 68(4) 1014–1035 (2020): “We link the rise of ‘coup with adjectives’ to the phenomenon of ‘prevalence-induced concept change’ (Levari et al., 2018): when instances of a concept become less prevalent, the understanding of the concept expands to cover cases it previously excluded.”</ref> ”

Because we’re having difficulty moving forward, and because I’m relying upon WP:RS, it also might be useful to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how or why that random snippet or the article would be helpful to the decision under discussion here. Also, could you revise your template to a more conventional display format? SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, that article seeks to explain why different scholars use different definitions of the word “coup”. The whole article is worth reading, not just the snippet (which was provided merely to show relevance). Marsteintredet, Leiv and Malamud, Andrés. “Coup with Adjectives: Conceptual Stretching or Innovation in Comparative Research”, Political Studies Vol. 68(4) 1014–1035 (2020): “We link the rise of ‘coup with adjectives’ to the phenomenon of ‘prevalence-induced concept change’ (Levari et al., 2018): when instances of a concept become less prevalent, the understanding of the concept expands to cover cases it previously excluded.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well it is not helpful and the problem is not whether it is RS for something or other. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

WHO are you addressing? (Your nine colons of indentation suggests it’s not me.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Addressing you. Don't count colons, fix them. Thanks. Also Question for you: Are Brian Kilmeade and Laura Ingraham "historians"? SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

remove the trump coup or add the 2017 coup

If you are going to add the trump "coup" add the 2017 coup as well were the democratic party you know burned down half of the country and they also tried to stop trump from getting elected but I guess that isn't considered a coup... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr0i6piW_ak because everyone seems to for get about this... Artifactz (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the above discussions the list criteria are still up in the air, but in general we are leaning toward either some reliable sources calling something a coup, or an academic database doing so among a list of coups. Per the latter criterion, the Cline Center Coup D’état Project Dataset, 2021, doi:10.13012/B2IDB-9651987_V3 will likely be, on their next version (in several years), adding 1/6 to the list per their statement to Politico that it was an "attempted dissident coup". If from the dataset page you download the Code Book, you can see their definitions and criteria for these terms, but of relevance is their criteria for being listed as any "coup", which are probably the most generous for any such academic list. In particular, with regards to your example, a coup must have some form of organized effort (again, this can be generous, but it's not a riot) and must be a "threat to a leader's hold on power" (or power transition in coup variants). In this case there was clearly no perceived legitimate threat -- it's not like they evacuated the National Mall. I hope this gives some clarification. Read a bit of the thread above to see how complicated defining coups get, and don't put faith in this list. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)