Talk:Self-coup/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Fiction?

This is a pretty important concept and should really be made more serious. I think this article needs

• Remove list of self-coups in popular fiction -- this isn't a fanboy wiki
• Research and detail the list a bit better (date of election, date of constitutional suspension, date of overthrow/abdication/death)
• Find a list of alternate names for such a coup and research that -- self-coup is a term I've never heard, yet it happens a lot.

Steve Rapaport (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Choice of word

Is this the right terminology? A self-coup suggests a coup against oneself but in reality, it is a coup against the constitution.--Countakeshi (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a right word. The victim of a coup always is constitutional order, and then the head of state. But in a self-coup, only the constitutional order is the victim. The head of state extended his rights (e.g. allowing a president to be re-elected infinitely while it is unconstitutional). However, it is just my viewpoint. I think it is better to find some books on related disciplines to show who has used that word and how that word is used.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it some journalist in Univision (Jorge Ramos?) or wherever who invented the term for Fujimori's presidential coup? SamEV (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for a self-coup should be listed here. In Maldives case I would suggest that Canarygate should be listed here as a possible reason for Maldives' case. Maldivesguy (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Maldives case does not fit in with the features of a self-coup described in the page. The president ordered the arrest of a judge who had been found guilty of misconduct by the judicial oversight body, the Judicial Services Commission. The move did not alter the distribution of powers between the judiciary and the executive or between the executive and the legislature, but demonstrated the failure of the oversight mechanisms which quickly hastened to explain why their disciplinary measures had been slow. Between 16 January and 7 February, there were no special powers claimed by the president, except the stand off between the judiciary and the executive highlighted the corruption and incompetence of a judiciary which had been appointed by the former dictatorship. Contrary to claims, no salaries were withheld and no elections were cancelled. In fact, the coup detat that occurred on 7 February was instigated by the ousted dictatorship in collusion with the Vice President, and with the support of radical Islamists. The origins of the coup are traced to the December 23rd Coalition which was formed to ouster Nasheed from office for being an alleged agent of Zionism and Christian evangelism. A detailed and independent investigation is included in the Australian TV investigative report in http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/601405/n/Diary-of-a-Coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.163.122.59 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

this is not true the fact was the criminal court judge had enforced disappearance. There has been statements released regarding this statement explicitly on this case alone from UN, ICJ and EU. and regarding the other case it is an ongoing process(to be neutral i am not saying whether preisdent nasheed left office by a coup or he resign on his own there own this coup which is of nasheed is talks about is unrelated or not the above incident is a self coup in which nasheed also admitted one time he arrested criminal abdulah gazee wrong nasheed quotes Even Nasheed appears uncomfortable, if unwavering.

"For god's sake, I don't want to arrest anyone. I have no intention of keeping anyone under arrest, and the man is kept very nicely - that's no justification at all - but it's not the kind of dump we were kept in." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-maldives-idUSTRE8150FU20120206

and regarding the statement by UN and EU http://www.miadhu.com/2012/01/local-news/european-union-express-concern-over-arrest-of-criminal-court-judge/

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/01/un-maldives-must-release-or-charge-arrested-judge.php so what the above person saying that the person has been arrested for guilty of misconduct is false this has been expressed. above statement so there have been more actions done previously such as LOCKING the supreme court and dealing parliament members without charge which was successful solved by the intervention of USA. I much as try to put information relevant to the article and with references and unbiased way as much as possible including non relvant topic i believe is not misleading to the readers and also taints’ the picture of the topic. And another point is the above user hardly talks about the self coup he is talking about a coup detat which is a totally different story which is under investigation the UN,USA representative robert blake and common wealth have not said its a coup which he is talking about in February 7th neither have they denied it.(; its an ongoing process and a different topic which he is trying to mislead

the reason which he says no evidences is that actual AUDIO WAS Released regarding t and no international institutions have mentioned of islmaists as and sighted by Dr waheed the supreme courts judges were appointed by Nasheed himself and still are many things are false http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2012/03/201231113618982509.html

Irresponsible undoing

This page contains materials that could be challenged - please do so if needed - but do not undo important additions. --ibn zareena 23:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Blanking of sections only leads to the restoration of the same material. If the text seems wrong or biased, please provide constructive edits backed by reputable sources and, if necessary, bring the debate here so that a consensus can be reached.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop the Edit warring in this article and discuss specific cases of self-coups here. Otherwise, I will request the protection of the article. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Already requested ! Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2012

The overthrow of government in Maldives (the whole second paragraph) and listing of the incident as example of a self-coup is inaccurate.

The overthrowing of President Mohamed Nasheed is yet to be investigated and the legality of power transfer or the circumstances surrounding the transfer of power is not known. Please refer to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/news/34580/244593/220212cmagstatement.htm

123.176.25.198 (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The edit war which caused the article to be semi-protected seems to have been about this very subject. The template cannot be used to continue the edit war. Celestra (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What the link which he has given is TOTAllY CORRECT but what the user is talking is about a "COUP" which is investigates while the TOPIC IS "SELF COUP" these are TOTALLY 2 different things. the concerns regarding the detain of judge has been addressed by International insitutions such as ICJ, UN, EU and they have released different statements regarding this issue as mentioned above. and other issues directly link with some of the issues are statemnts relased by UN; http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/01/un-maldives-must-release-or-charge-arrested-judge.php and ICJ ABC Radio February 1, 2012]</ref> so the issue raised by opportunist is totally different from mentioned in the topic these have been proven by international institutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.114.162.29 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue regarding Maldivian self-coup.

the issue of the self coup and the current sitauion which people call as "coup" which is mentioned are totally different things. slef coup si done by a person while the "coup" which is second in nature is having conrteviseis of which people say reisgn by force is TOTASLLY ADIFFERENT ISUSE SELF COUP IS LEADER AASSUMI uncostitualnal powers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.211.197 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The situation in Maldives is currently under investigation, and a conclusion regarding the nature of the events that occurred for the transfer of power has not yet been met. While the current government holds its stance that it was a self coup by the Nasheed administration, the Nasheed administration says that itbwasca coup d'état organized by the current government. INdependent investigators are currently investigating the transfer if power. Therefore, the inclusion of the events here right now would be of political bias, since no fact regarding the events has yet been confirmed. - ℤiαηsh✍ 19:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Failing to record an event because its interpretation is unclear is just another form of censorship. Wikipedia reports what is known using the best sources available - reporting what is verifiable although not necessarily true. Blanking whole sections adds nothing but frustration.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What is under investigation is not the events described as a Self-Coup which has subsequently been removed by User:Ziansh. Rather what is under investigation is the events surrounding the resignation of former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed. These are two completely different things. What was mentioned as the Maldivian self-coup was Mr. Nasheed's attempted grab of power by arresting the chief judge of the Criminal Court of the Maldives and subsequent refusals to obey orders from all the courts in the Maldives including the Supreme Court. Mr. Nasheed also in one of the leaked audios indicated that he would not hold election in 2013 as per the constitution unless he is able to "reform" the judiciary. (All references to these were provided in the article by the editors who added the section on the Maldivian coup). User:Ziansh in my opinion is confused about the self-coup by Mohamed Nasheed and the events surrounding the resignation of Mohamed Nasheed which occurred on February 7, 2012 which he later claim was forced. I request the deleted material on the Maldivian self-coup be restored since a valid counter argument against it has not yet been provided. ށަވިޔަނި (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

this is not true the fact was the criminal court judge had enforced disappearance. There has been statements released regarding this statement explicitly on this case alone from UN, ICJ and EU. and regarding the issue of "coup"e it is an ongoing process(to be neutral i am not saying whether preisdent nasheed left office by a coup or he resign on his own there own this coup which is of nasheed is talks about is unrelated or not

the above incident is a self coup in which nasheed also admitted one time he arrested criminal abdulah gazee WRONG nasheed quotes http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-maldives-idUSTRE8150FU20120206

and regarding the statement by UN and EU http://www.miadhu.com/2012/01/local-news/european-union-express-concern-over-arrest-of-criminal-court-judge/

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/01/un-maldives-must-release-or-charge-arrested-judge.php so what the above person saying that I much as try to put information relevant to the article and with references and unbiased way as much as possible including non relvant topic i believe is not misleading to the readers and also taints’ the picture of the topic.

And another point is the above user hardly talks about the self coup he is talking about a coup detat which is a totally different story which is under investigation the UN,USA representative robert blake and common wealth have not said its a coup which he is talking about in February 7th neither have they denied it.(; its an ongoing process and a different topic which he is trying to mislead

User:Ziansh i belived that he had recently beocmed admin and must try to maintain the standards of the article. as he is a Maldivian he would knw the ground relaity bit well so in case of mistake please revrt and if it is otherwose dont try to weaken the image of wikipedia what i am giving is statements of INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. and both of thses events gav seperate statements. the later icnident is ongoing while the other regrading self coup has been finished. and

User:Ziansh so please rvert his back or try to counter it REGARNDG the links ONLY and not. TRY TO BRING into a topic which is IRREVELANT. deleting never solves any problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camonet (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected the article for three days due to the sustained edit warring over the last week. If, after discussion, you would like to propose a change you believe is supported by consensus, please use the {{Edit protected}} template. Please see Dispute resolution for some alternative processes that may help reaching a consensus if local open discussion continues to fail to reach a conclusion. --Fæ (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Serbia

The entry recently added for the Serbian President sounds like political propaganda to me. What he did hardly compares to coup in my estimation. If it does then you'll have to add a lot more entries for a lot of other current leaders. Cole Dalton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Germany 1934

How did Hitler not make the cut? What he did was undoubtedly a self-coup?Ottawakismet (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Cameron

Your addition is not supported by your source:

• It does not even mention Cameron individually, only the government collectively.
• It does not say he "dissolved or rendered powerless the national legislature".
• It does not say he "became a dictator".
• It does not say he "annulled the nation's constitution and suspended civil courts".

Whatever your objections to this law, it has been passed by the normal legislative process and does not fall under any of the above descriptions. From both the definition in the article and the other examples it gives, the term "self-coup" is clearly limited to extraordinary powers being taken by a specific person or group, not the state in general. It is not applicable in this situation.

Please do not repeat your addition before giving a full response to this message. – Smyth\^talk 19:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Members of the British parliament clearly depict this action as "all characteristics of a rogue state". There is exactly ZERO doubt that this legislation has bypassed *ALL* regular instruments of democratic parlamentarian control and is in serious contradiction to EU law and British duties from their signature to EU treaties.

You're making the big mistake of trying to compare Cameron to Hitler. And even then, check the date listed for Hitler: March 23, 1933. Hitler was *NO* dictator on March 24th!! That happened later. Compare Cameron to someone contemporary, like the turkish premier, maybe. Cameron sacked several of his ministers who tried to prevent the passing of the DRIP bill. Cameron's action meet all relevant characteristics of having performed a self-coup: Blatently abused legal processes in the worst possible fashion to allow him to continue wrongdoings that have been ruled as illegal and incompatible with the closest thing to a constitution that applies to UK: the treaty of Lisbon.

Now you're writing a new definition of the term. Violating treaties, disrespecting parliament, turning the UK into a "rogue state", sure, those are all bad things. But none of them meet the definition of a self-coup as given in the article, a definition which I believe is accurate. If Cameron had bypassed any "instruments of democratic parlamentarian control", then you might have a point. But as you know, the law was passed by parliament in the normal way.

As for the Turkish prime minister, I see nothing in his article which would meet the definition, so I have removed him from the list. – Smyth\^talk 20:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The date given for Hitler is the date of the Enabling Act of 1933. It was passed by the German parliament after a hundred legislators had been arrested and the rest were being intimidated by the Nazis' private paramilitary organization. Did you see either of those things happening last month? – Smyth\^talk 20:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In Turkey, the military used to do military coups regularly. This changed when Recep Tayyip Erdogan took office, reversing the roles. Since he's taken office, he has been abusing powers quite badly. The number of human rights violations in Turkey confirmed by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is quite significant. UK still pales in comparison today, but I'm sure Cameron will catch up quickly. - martin196r 21:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How many different ways can I say this? Just because a politician has done bad things does not mean they have performed a self-coup. The definition of the term is clear. You have proved no evidence that these two people fall under it. – Smyth\^talk 21:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to deceive here. The characteristics that they all have in common is that they

  - came to power in a "officially legal fashion"
  - remove as many persons out of their way that would otherwise interfere with their sinister plans
  - seriously abuse the existing legal procedures under declaration of emergency
  - assume extra-legal powers that would not normally be granted to them (or their agencies)
    and ensure their actions are protected from control and accountability through public/press and parliament

Of course. they only take as much as they can get away with, and not necessarily more at a time than what is necessary to meet their short term objectives. UK does not have a constitution nor a constitutional court which could stop Cameron. Under the current EU treaties, there are two EU courts (ECHR, ECJ) that would be willing and able to, which is why Cameron proclaimed his edition of "mein Kampf" that he wants the UK to resign from the EU Convention of Human Rights. - martin196r 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am commenting based on the Third Opinion request. I won't agree or disagree with either of your positions. I simply recommend for the guideline Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth be followed in this case. You are all entitled to your personal opinions, but please make sure that Wikipedia articles have information that is not original research. Thanks!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's exactly the problem. He apparently thinks it's obvious that what the sources are describing is a "self-coup". I completely disagree. – Smyth\^talk 20:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that both of you are not paying attention to the guideline. Martin is conducting original research, and you are falling right into the game by making this a discussion. The guidelines back Smyth, and that's that. Disruptions contrary to the guideline must be reported to AN/I, and not at Third Opinion (although, I assume the 3O request at least cleared up the next steps to take on the case...so whatever). In any case, I hope this can be resolved without further trouble. Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Article valid?

I came onto this article from a Third Opinion request pending about it. In doing research towards deciding whether to "take" that request as a Third Opinion volunteer, I have become very unsure whether this article is valid in its current state. First, it does not seem to me that the definition of self-coup is sufficiently fixed in meaning — and I would note that at this point in time we don't even have a reliable source for the definition given in the lede — to have an article of this precision about it. The fact that the term may have different meanings is discussed in this article from Foreign Policy magazine. Second, I do not know, but I very strongly suspect that there are no sources given for the inclusion of most of the items in the list because there are no sources which plainly say, with no original research, that the event noted in the item was a self-coup. I believe that there very well may be a valid article on this topic, but I have grave doubt that this is it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I came to this article after looking at the Polity data series, which does plainly say that certain events were an "autocoup". So that could be a start. – Smyth\^talk 09:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I too havd my doubts about the validity of the article. A Google search of "self coup" brings up this page from an academic domain. Many other hits were WP references. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Turkey 14 March 2003

I'd say the situation fits the definition. But the dating is not true. It could be the Turkish constitutional referendum, 2010 or the gezi park protests in may 2013. Before these there was a hint of seperation of powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.85.154 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016

Please alphabetize the list instead of chronological order

Ysfkrl (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)