Talk:Self-coup/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Donald Trump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support or Oppose

Should Donald Trump be added to the Post-Cold War section with the (failed) note? --CoryJosh (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support: He has made legitimate attempts to persuade state legislators to appoint their own electors, use the courts to void votes, and is now aiming for faithless electors to deliver the election to him. He will fail, but these are clear attempts to remain in power. --CoryJosh (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support: It's a clear attempt to overturn an election that has been deemed legitimate by every nonbiased source, as well as by sources who are on the Trump administration's own payroll. Though it has mainly been executed through legal channels, it has been accompanied by implicit threats of violence or civic unrest, as well as explicit death threats against civic servants conducting the election, and other extralegal attempts to influence their decisions. Refraining from designating it a coup attempt at this point would be more biased than the alternative. TKSnaevarr (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose (See below): I do think you two are right about what this is, but there are two issues. First, an ongoing coup attempt has not yet "failed" (although, of course, as we all know, it will [for numerous reasons, not least of which is that Trump has a poor relationship with military leadership and he has dipped in popularity with the rank-and-file], and in any case is almost certainly more of a theatrical performance amidst other efforts to undermine the legitimacy and efficacy of the next administration). Most importantly, while some commentators from reputable sources are indeed describing it as a (doomed) coup, most others refuse to use that label while still noting it is dangerous – whatever it is. Wait for something more resembling journalistic/scholarly consensus (and for Biden to take office and Trump to vacate the White House). WP Ludicer (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

WP Ludicer, your opposition seems to be based on the understanding that this article is about military coups. But it isn't, it is about self-coups (aka autocoups or autogolpes). In that light, might you reconsider your opposition? Zazpot (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Zazpot: My opposition is based on the lack of consensus and the fact that the attempt has not yet failed. I am aware that he is attempting a self-coup and not a military coup d'etat. My parenthetical was about why it would ultimately fail—I firmly believe any serious attempt to negate the election and hold on to power will require the support of the military, but that has nothing to do with my position on whether Trump's efforts qualify to be listed here. If we want to list this as ongoing (as opposed to a failed) attempt, then my only requirement would be more sources describing it as such. As it is, while the idea that this is an attempt at a self-coup is by no means a fringe opinion (as I indicated), it is also not the consensus of the journalistic or scholarly (political science) community. Prove me wrong on that and I'm happy to reverse my opposition. As it stands, I simply believe it would prove highly contentious once included in the article space and my concerns would have to be addressed anyway. WP Ludicer (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

WP Ludicer, thanks. That's much clearer, and more persuasive. Out of interest, what would be a sufficient standard of proof, in your eyes? Journalists and political scientists are a very diverse bunch, after all. Still, outlets from Bloomberg to BoingBoing, Vanity Fair to the San Francisco Chronicle have characterised Trump's efforts as a coup attempt. Zazpot (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Zazpot: That this is being described as a self-coup by reputable commentators is undeniable—so much so that any fair, unbiased coverage of Trump's and the GOP's efforts would have to mention those opinions. However, to list the attempt here, I believe there must be a broader consensus. As I said in my first comment, there are also many others who are opposed to calling it a coup, even as they agree that it is extremely damaging and represents democratic backsliding. Maybe it could be listed here with the qualifier that the consensus is closer to this being "coup theater", but I think all of this is going to be a lot easier to discuss come January. But don't let my opposition get in the way of inclusion; I just want to be sure this discussion is a thorough one. We know this kind of change will likely lead to the article being in protected status before long. WP Ludicer (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I support the inclusion right now. Just because the process is ongoing doesn't mean we have to wait until January 20th to include discussion of the attempt. Trump is clearly trying to reverse the outcome of an election in which no credible evidence of fraud or malfeasance has been demonstrated. There is already adequate outside source material to cite (e.g. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Professor of History from NYU whose field of study is autocratic regimes of the past and present: https://www.salon.com/2020/12/02/historian-ruth-ben-ghiat-trumps-coup-is-not-over-his-enablers-arent-done/). Darryl Prandell (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support but it should be marked as underway until the outcome is clear.

Trump is clearly attempting an autogolpe. (He may not have sufficient support to make it succeed, but that is a separate matter.)[1] In addition to Trump's own denial of the election result:

• Large numbers of prominent Republicans have, at Trump's urging, backed Texas's attempt to overturn the election result,[2] or have otherwise supported his (apparently baseless) claims that the election result was illegitimate
• Michael Flynn and other Trump allies continue to encourage their supporters to deny the election result, calling for martial law[3] and saying things like "We decide the election. We're waging a battle across America."[4]
• If Trump's efforts to overturn the election continue to fail in the courts, Trump supporters in Congress intend to attempt to overturn the result there. One of these Congressmen, Mo Brooks, exemplified this intention by saying, "[Congressmen] have a superior role under the Constitution than the Supreme Court does, than any federal court judge does, than any state court judge does. What we say, goes. That's the final verdict."[5]
• Etc.[6][7][8][9]

If the autogolpe succeeds, Wikipedia will have been right to include it. If it fails, Wikipedia can just mark it as failed. Zazpot (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The FBI has warned that Trump supporters nationwide are planning armed gatherings next week. This does seem to indicate that the (self-)coup attempt is ongoing. Zazpot (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support "attempted coup" (or similar) based on the well-sourced content and wording here: Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results#Description of GOP actions as a coup. This has nothing to do with whether there is or is not a coup, but whether multiple RS document opinions that describe ®Trump and Company's actions as an attempted coup, soft coup, and/or bloodless coup. There are enough to justify such content here.

This would also justify the addition to the lead of words like "refusal to accept the results of a valid election" (or similar). -- Valjean (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support provided we note that some have disagreed with the characterization. Many RS and commentators have described it as an attempted coup or self-coup, but there's not universal agreement that it is one.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support plenty of reliable sources such as The Philadelphia Inquirer , Nürnberger Nachrichten and Vox Trump is attempting a coup in plain sight. In: Vox, November 7, 2020.</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.Ayana (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support, since reliable sources have reported it as such, and Trump's attempts to overturn a legitimate election and stay in power are a textbook self-coup attempt. — Red XIV ^(talk) 08:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Trump's actions entirely fit the definition of a self-coup and reliable sources agree with this entirely. Nekomancerjade ^(talk) 01:36, 2020 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Definitely fits the bill. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support I was borderline about this before. With the revelation of Trump's phone call to the Georgia Governor on 02 Jan 2020 - issuing threats to the governor unless fraudulent votes were somehow created, and specifying the exact number of votes that had to be created - I'm happy for Trump to be on this list. RedTomato (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support (changed from previous opposition): As far as I'm concerned, the latest revelation and yet another round of opinion pieces from mainstream commentators are sufficient for me to believe that Wikipedia would be violating neutrality by not describing his efforts in these terms. It could perhaps come with the caveat that the characterization is disputed, but at this point, I'd need to be convinced by sources that it isn't the dominant view of the matter by people who comment on politics in general, and study coups specifically. WP Ludicer (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Donald Trump has not dissolved or rendered powerless the national legislature or unlawfully assumed extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Nor has he annulled the nation's constitution, suspended civil courts, or assumed dictatorial powers. This thread, with its overwhelming Support consensus, will go down as one of the most disgraceful examples of Wikipedia's left-wing editorial bias. NedFausa (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

First, WP:GF. Second, is your opposition based solely on the fact that he has not succeeded? WP Ludicer (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

My opposition is based on the absence of evidence that Donald Trump has even attempted to dissolve or render powerless the national legislature, unlawfully assume extraordinary powers, annul the nation's constitution, suspend civil courts, or assume dictatorial powers. And Wikipedia:Assume good faith does not confer on editors a license to apply their political biases without objection from other editors. NedFausa (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it means that you should enter a discussion with the assumption that other editors are not acting solely on their biases. Your first contribution came with an immediate condemnation of everyone involved as disgracefully biased. How does that help? As for the article, there are reliable sources (academics, mainstream news outlets) which are describing Trump's actions in these terms. This isn't a fringe viewpoint, and it wasn't even when I initially opposed Trump's inclusion. Trump has gone beyond his legally permissible (albeit still unprecedented) challenges by attempting to pressure government officials into overturning election results and awarding him the electoral votes instead—in other words, trying to recruit conspirators to negate an election that he lost. That said, I would personally welcome more input. An RfC seems appropriate. WP Ludicer (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the RfC - To me, the discussion isn't actually if President Trump should be on the list - Sources agree with this. It is a matter of improving the clarity of the page. If someone is looking to use this page as a checklist to determine if an event strictly meets the definition, it might be easy to assume that all the examples are a total criteria. It should be made clear that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that the items in the lead paragraph are non-exhaustive examples that can be symptomatic of a self-coup, and not criteria. DMBradbury 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with NedFausa. This reads like the result of a left-wing bubble. There aren't any actual actions taken by Trump which fit the definition. Did any of those who voted Support also vote Republican in this last election, like ~half of voters did(FYI, I voted third party)? Or does this conveniently line up with your pre-existing political biases? Consider also that no one has even stated they believe Trump has actually taken action which fits the definition "dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures taken may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers", but rather it's labeled "failed" because he didn't actually do any of those things. 2605:A601:A1A6:4F00:9073:FC06:93B0:B897 (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: the definition:

• Trump did attempt to "render powerless the national legislature", by encouraging his supporters to storm the Capitol and disrupt the confirmation of Trump's rival as the legitimate president-elect.

by encouraging his supporters to storm the Capitol

A bold lie. Literally never happened.

Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol — and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections.

2001:569:7F64:C700:90FD:1318:F707:E48E (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Trump did attempt to "unlawfully assume extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances":
  • the power to compel election officials (e.g. in Georgia) to invent an election result that would keep his party in control of the Senate;
  • the power to compel his deputy (Pence) to overturn the election result in his favor (this is also close to "having the head of government assume dictatorial powers"; and (reportedly still under discussion)
  • the power to self-pardon.

The attempt is labelled "failed" not because he didn't attempt these things, but because although he attempted them, he did not (yet?) succeed. Zazpot (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The speech transcripts are clear. He told his supporters to march "to" the capitol, not "storm the Capitol and disrupt the confirmation". He also told them to stay peaceful and avoid any violence. An actual attempt would be something like ordering the Army or Federal Marshalls (both of whom report to him) to secure the capitol and arrest Congress.

He didn't attempt to "compel" officials in Georgia. His campaign sued them. They had a settlement call where he asked them to comply with their legal demands by auditing Fulsom County. To "compel" them, he would've needed to use force in some way.

He hasn't pardoned himself, nor attempted to, unless you've heard something which hasn't hit the news anywhere. This sort of accusation just further demonstrates how extremely inaccurate this list is and how "self-coup" doesn't apply. 2605:A601:A1A6:4F00:9073:FC06:93B0:B897 (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Point-by-point reply:

• Multiple RS interpret the speech transcripts (and surrounding context, including statements he made online, statements made on his behalf or in his support by his lawyer and other staff, and evidence from recent years about how his base would interpret those statements) as I do. As an individual human being, you personally are free to deny or ignore that; but Wikipedia as a whole cannot.
• He didn't just sue officials in Georgia. He also phoned them, threatening legal consequences if they did not comply with his unlawful demands. And he attempted to undermine them through other means, including through lies on social media that (predictably) generated death threats to those officials from his supporters.
• (He likewise pressured Pence, which - after Pence resisted, citing the constitution - led Trump's supporters to attempt to lynch Pence.)
• I didn't say he has pardoned himself. I said that that matter is still under discussion, and so it is.

If you want to keep denying what happened, you are welcome, but I prefer not to, and nor should Wikipedia. Zazpot (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• The "RS" you cited don't actually say what you claim them to say.
• I've read the transcript of the call. Trump never threatened legal consequences and the call was clearly (as identified in the call itself) a settlement attempt as part of the lawsuit, not something outside of it. That's also what the factual reporting shows (as opposed to people's opinions).
• According to your source, Trump said he "wouldn't like him as much" if Pence didn't agree with him that the results shouldn't be certified because of alleged fraud. There isn't even an accusation in your sources that Trump called for any physical harm to Pence.

To echo your statement, if you want to keep pushing your political axe to grind, you're welcome to, but I prefer not to, and nor should Wikipedia. The more Wikipedia gets away from a factual encyclopedia and turns into a partisan echo chamber, the less useful it will be to humanity as a whole. To pretend this is just an undisputed reference to a factual event is nonsense. This is taking a partisan interpretation of recent political events and attempting to turn them into a blow against someone's political opponents. To those not deep into an anti-Trump bubble, it's pretty obvious, albeit disturbing, what's going on. Wikipedia shouldn't make every page about Trump. If the goal is to factually describe and list examples of self-coups, then adding "failed attempt by Trump" is diametrically opposed to accomplishing that goal. Add a better example instead. 2605:A601:A1A6:4F00:9073:FC06:93B0:B897 (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It's not clear to me that "this" is a self-coup. Further, we need to think clearly about how sources are used here. If five normally RS say this is a self-coup, that is not sufficient. There may be tens, hundreds or thousands of RS that cover "this" and do not describe it as such. Somewhere along the line between unanimity in one direction or the other we should include it as disputed, further along we should include unqualified. More nuance is not appropriate on this page, but might be elsewhere. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Support, but it should be marked as underway until Biden becomes president, if not longer. I don't think it is appropriate to say Donald Trump is done trying to use violence to maintain power. I'm not sure the evidence is strong enough to assert it is definitively on going, but I think there is enough that we should consider it possible, if not likely. As such, I think maybe we should label it as 'ongoing' (instead of saying it failed and ended on January 6th). That said I'm not sure Twitter's blog counts as a reliable source by wikipedia standards, and the things that do count as reliable sources (that I am linking to at least) make it clear they are largely or wholly echoing twitter's blog. . Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose While it is fair to say what happened is considered by some to be a Coup (self-coup) here are two counter claims by academics of the same repute as the ones in favor. [10] [11] 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is blatantly biased, there is no NPOV at all here. 74.98.224.99 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Compromise Proposed compromise, to include that there isn't widespread agreement on the Trump example. Add the line "An Ipsos poll found that 51% of Americans believed that the storming of the capitol building was an attempted coup, but 49% either disagreed or didn't know." cited to Alternately, news articles could be cited which reflect the same point if disagreement.
• Oppose He tried to ease tension not dismantle the parliament or something.--ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)ZeusAmmon1

2605:A601:A1A6:4F00:9073:FC06:93B0:B897 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The random American on the street (or in a polling sample) is not a subject matter expert, i.e. Ad populum. What matters here is how it is described in reliable sources. No comment on that, since I haven't checked. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose perhaps a compromise explaing the current scholary dispute? 999ThingsToFix (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The actions of Donald Trump during the election does not fit the very definition of "self-coup" given in the article itself. Can someone please remind me what extra, illegal power Trump assumed to contest the election results? Or when he annulled the constitution? Or when he mobilized the military to contest the results? Just because 4 left-leaning sources say something that is controversial is true, does not make it so. Imagine if Wikipedia gave Breitbart the same credibility as The Atlantic and The Guardian! People would absolutely lose their minds! This is certainly a debatable topic, but honestly the evidence is not objectively there to support the largely false claim that Donald Trump attempted a self-coup. Did Trump whine? Yes. Did Trump start a civil war and use the military against the people, as virtually every other leader on this list has? No. Calling Trump's actions during the election a "self-coup" is emotionally charged, and this claim is only supported by one particular political tribe.

I haven't edited anything yet because I don't want to be caught up in an edit war, or possibly banned from wikipedia for trying to defend the fading integrity of this website. Hamjamguy 21:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  This is a discussion, WP:NOTAVOTE. The immediately above should be discounted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the entire list per MOS:USEPROSE. Why do we even have such a poor example farm list in what is supposed to be a quality prose article? As this discussion has revealed, it's not easy to classify something as a self-coup on a "yes" or "no" scale. Real world politics is much more nuanced than that, and high quality sources reflect this. The list should be removed and re-written as prose. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose, I will try to look at the issue unbiased, but there is a great deal of debate as to what has happened that day, as informers and historians, we cannot justifiably call something a coup until two to three years later, coups typically have an effect if failed, this event only resulted in arrests, I could add to this list by saying that adding supreme court justices would count as a Autocoup, but would that be correct, no, it is our duty to be unbiased and be patient to see how history plays out. KingEid (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC) — KingEid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  So, by the logic of what you're saying, we can't logically call the situation in Myanmar a coup? As for "this event only resulted in arrests" that is completely disconnected from the reality (impeachment, ...) and has very little bearing on whether this was an attempted coup or not. Your arguments and those of many above read like pure WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the entire list per MOS:USEPROSE.

Agree with user:FinnUserTop Transcendent Presence (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support/keep. The attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election have been described in a large number of sources (including ones used on the page) as an attempted self-coup because the attempts were led and initiated by Donald Trump, obviously to stay in power (as he openly said many times himself). And this is simply a matter of fact. If not an attempted self-coup, then what it was? That he did not start (yet) a civil war and did not use the military against the people is irrelevant. He used other means that are fully described on the page attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. For example, he used people (his supporters) against Capitol police. My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The page does has an issue. This is a mixture of an ordinary page and a list. It could be fixed by providing more detailed descriptions like in this version: [12]. I do not see any problem with this. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, for much of the same reasons named above, nevermind said claim not fitting anywhere near the definition given by the article itself in action and honestly in intent as NedFausa even points out. AvalonXD (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa, you mean the editor that was banned and blocked for trolling? 2600:387:F:461B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I do indeed. That he was banned does not detract on why I supported him which was due to the presented argument not the user presenting it. Nevermind he wasn't the only reason I raised either. AvalonXD (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I wouldn't have been so sure of supporting the description if it wasn't for January 6. Before that, he appealed to various places in ways that are either technically legal or straddled on the law (courts, election officials, state legislatures, Congress, his own vice president). But when all those failed, he basically responded that the law and institutions don't matter, he's seizing power anyway. That seems like a pretty clear case of a (self-) coup to me. Reliable sources describe it as a self-coup. 2600:387:F:461B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Autogolpe de Estado de Perú de 1992.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Puppet parliament

Does the puppet parliament that is working at will of authoriatarian leader (like putin) who have usurped power and basically amended constitution is a case of self-coup? What scholars think about that? Any sources? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but I can offer the suggestion to reframe the question. The parliament is a bunch of people. A soft coup, if there was a soft coup, would consist of events. A literal reading of your question instantly answers itself with "no", a bunch of people are a group, not a coup. You ask an interesting question, though, i.e., if Putin's various ways of extending his rule fall in this category. I really don't know and will be interested to hear others input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I think they would be seen as a part of Putin's coup, but with him having established their existence as subservient to him, so he is the coup leader, and only if they actively acted to help him would they be considered as accessories for aiding and abetting his self-coup. I don't recall the details of his rise to power enough to say. Most GOP politicians, and Pentz if he had cooperated, might be judged guilty of the same crime for helping Trump's self-coup attempt. Time will tell. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)