Talk:Self-coup/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Alphabetizing the list

The current list does not seem to be alphabetized, and I can not access it due to the semi-protectionSerFishy (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: why should it be alphabetized? it's currently in chronological order Cannolis (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be chronologically ordered at the moment, but would appreciate chronological ordering. --Makkachin (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've ordered the list by year. There was only one event that appeared to be out of order. I think this list can be converted into a table, with the headers being: Date, Country, Leader, and Event. Event would link to the Wikipedia article of the event. A sortable wikitable would also address sorting preference. --Makkachin (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

15 July 2016 dated occurence in Turkey

The list of occurences should be updated with the addition of the last event happened in Turkey.

• Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (July 15, 2016)

Should be added when we get more details of the coup aftermath SerFishy (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

From the artcle "dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature", http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36852080 says "The emergency allows the president and cabinet to bypass parliament when drafting new laws and to restrict or suspend rights and freedoms.". Seems to me that it meets the criteria Lalichii (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Alessa Wade (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Not seeing where the Turkish president has assumed extraordinary powers Cannolis (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Turkey

I am having hard time to understand the difference between 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt article and this article with this Template:Coup d'état template. Why does this information not mentioned in 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt article ? --185.20.165.182 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you fix that article then. This is well referenced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you try to mean that, the other article is not well referenced as it states that its not a self coup ? 37.191.126.83 (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't care (more than any other article) about the other one. For some reason this one is on my watchlist. I've never read the other one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't care, why do you revert the wrong information then. Having references means that it is automatically correct ? --185.20.165.182 (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No consensus has emerged for the change you wish to make. Please self revert. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@185.20.165.182 and Dbrodbeck: From 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt we can see that that article does discuss allegations of it being a self coup. I think excluding it from this list would be disservice to the list so I propose changing the line to "Turkey: President of the Republic Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (July 15, 2016; alleged)", this will allow it to be included as its noteworthy but allow people to check the main article for clarification. I also think that the incident is noteworthy enough to be classified as a self coup on the Template:Coup d'état that you editied it off of. For the sole reason of anyone that sees it on that list will not just take it on word, they would check the main article but anyone looking for Self Coup related information would be steered in that direction also and be able to find the big picture. Lalichii (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

Current:

Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (July 15, 2016; alleged)[3][4][5][6][7][8]

Edited:

Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (July 15, 2016)[3][4][5][6][7][8] Thebsn (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Alleged was added as a consensus was unable to be formed among editors and the article was frequently vandalised without it, if you can find a better more concrete source that would allow us to confirm Erdoğan's involvement in the coup I would be happy to remove alleged Lalichii (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As it is stated before,there is no evidence of Erdoğan's involvement in the coup. However there is ample evidence that it was an organized coup for a particular purpose,aimed to overthrow the parliament and the President. There are good amount of sources showing the evidences of an organized coup taking orders from a religious leader, Gülen. For sources in Turkish see this.. There is an article in English too here. Please either take the protection down or take the Erdoğan name out of the list for this is a very bold claim to make and it hurts all the Turkish people who believes in the democracy of their country and went to freely vote in the recent referendum with high rates of participation over 80%. As you know the referendum resulted to increase the power of its president with duly will of its own people. Even though it seems to meet some of the criteria of a self coup from your assessment, it does not meet all the criteria of your definition, since the increase of the President's power happened with its people's own choice. The criteria that you think is matching with the definition may also occur under different circumstances such as any kind of emergency situation that a country deems as a threat to the general security such as a terrorist attack. In fact that is what happened in Turkey. (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I recognise your objection however I think it is somewhat misinformed. The referendum has nothing to do with the claimed self coup, in fact it was added to this list before the referendum was even announced as a possibility. I am aware of the official perpetrator and am of the mind that this is probably the truth, we are not however the objective deciders of reality and so if a claim of self coup has been lodged (which it has) we cannot dismiss it purely because we think it is improbable. I'm open to discussion about this but it seems that many people (the majority being Turks) continue to remove the event from the list without any input to the discussion and so I am hesitant to allow removal without strong justification. Lalichii (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all, the main source that referenced in the article is BBC's report which considers a possibility of a self coup as one of three "theories" of what actually happened on 15 July. Among three theories, BBC gives no source for a false flag theory. Secondly, these reports have come right couple days after the coup which does not provide much ability to have a well sourced report for anybody anyways.Thirdly, upon long considerations and systematic investigation by the independent Turkish judiciary, it concluded that the coup was indeed purposefully organized and perpetrated by a military junta taking orders from Gülen. Fourthly, I have mentioned the referendum as it can also be considered as a supportive argument that if Turkish people who are the first hand witness of what has been happening in their country, would have thought that that was a false flag coup, they would not participate in this referendum as much or would not vote YES for a system that would increase President's power. In this case, following the definition given on self coup,the Turkish President Erdoğan has not dissolve or render the national legislature powerless and has not unlawfully assume extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. since the state of emergency (which increases President's executive power) has been declared not by himself but by the parliament through a majority vote of 346 against 115 just like the way what French parliament did for similar reasons. He has not annul the nation's constitution, suspend civil courts nor assume dictatorial powers.Therefore, keeping his name on this list by ignoring the decisions of Turkish court, opinions of the Turkish people,reactions of the parliament and by relying on a weak source written by a news media channel that does not provide any evidence written right couple days after the event without having any clue of what actually happened and written with a bias towards Erdoğan would not be just. Some Western media write these articles as they recognize him as an Islamist who has hostile feelings towards the West and too much of a powerful leader that makes difficult for them to mess up Turkey and the Middle East. It is debatable what their motives really are. And that is not the main point of the discussion here.

Assuming that I raised valid arguments here that would lead to the conclusion that it would be fair to take his name out of the list. So I just took his name out. I am also open to further discussion. Thanks rinduzahid^(talk) 14:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change. Also, as the article is still semi protected you should not have removed the semi protection notice. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Keeping a country's leader on this list with a side note "alleged" that is so weakly sourced which suggests he is a despot, a tyrant and a liar is unfair and offensive. As a Turkish citizen, I am upset and offended with this biased editing behavior. In this case I want to open the neutrality of this article to discussion. Thanks rinduzahid^(talk) 18:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that sources offend you. That, however, is really not an issue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Dbrodbeck, the source is not offensive. The news media had the excuse to cite any possible theories at the time. Those reports came right after the coup. Now, it has been eight months passing over the coup. The evidences have been laid out by the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice which has not been denied or objected by anybody within and outside of Turkey .In addition, that is a news media channel. They have the right to be biased and they can say whatever they want to say. However, Wikipedia is not a media outlet of any channel. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia contributed by serious people voluntarily and with good intentions to help grow a fair, balanced and unbiased source of knowledge. I don't think your insistence in keeping his name on this list serves to that purpose. rinduzahid^(talk) 18:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is a report by a neutral source (House of Commons, Foreign Affairs Committee, UK) stating that "The FCO seems willing to accept the Turkish government’s account of the coup attempt and the Gülenists broadly at face value." I think this entry should be removed. Guneserdogan (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the references listed there has nothing to do with any claim on self-coup. They are rather repercussions of strict ruling after the coup attempt. Elasolova 05/01/2017 @ 6:24pm (UTC)

Please read the quotation I have provided again. "The FCO seems willing to accept the Turkish government’s account of the coup attempt and the Gülenists broadly at face value." Meaning that it is not a self-coup, it is by an outsider group called Gülenists. The five references listed in support of the allegation are newspaper articles. This is a formal report, written by elected members of the parliament, with access to governmental intelligence. Hence, this is direct evidence in contrast to the peripheral evidence consisting of newspaper articles. Of course, they cannot reveal all of their sources. Guneserdogan (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an edit war over this, and if everyone else seems to think removing sourced content is ok, then, well, I'm not going to die on this hill. MPs writing a report is not the same, to me anyway, as professional news organizations. The original coup itself probably is not the work of the current government, the crackdown afterwards, the curtailment of civil liberties, the jailing of thousands, I think that is what is being referred to as a 'self coup' by some of us here. Anyway, if someone could fix the vandalism about Hitler in 1933 that would be helpful. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Stockholm Center for Freedom issued a very comprehensive report in July 2017 claiming that the coup was a false flag orchestrated by Turkish president Erdogan. The report disclosed a secret operation plan that was put in the works long before the coup attempt took place. The goal was to set up opposition for a mass persecution, justify crackdown and push Turkish army into military incursion into Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.199.153 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Table format

In order to increase readability I've converted the page to a table format (preview), it needs some work (outcomes and contemporary names of nations) but I think its much superior to the current page. Any objections/suggestions? Lalichii (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is a good idea, since it also lists the outcomes of such coups and detailled articles on these events. --Jean Po (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hitler?

I note that Hitler is missing from this page. I am not going to go into the many reasons why I consider he should be on this page. I would like to ask:

• Is there a reason why he is not on this page?
• If so, perhaps that should be addressed in the body of the article?

(I note he is also not on the Coup d'etat page. And there is no discussion of him on the talk page or in the talk archives.)RedTomato (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose the argument could be made that Hitler's consolidation of power doesn't count as a coup because he technically took the final steps to it through official channels, but that just prompts the question of how a democratically elected legislature turning over power to a military dictator is meaningfully different from a self-coup, especially if the legislature's actions were taken under false pretences. Like, is it not a mugging if you ask to borrow somebody's wallet, knowing you won't return it? --69.41.200.209 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a rather indiscriminate culling of the page in December. I suspect that most of those items would have had a reference in their article which could be used. However, we often don't require refences in list articles for this very reason. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

Can this be undone? At the very least add Napoleon III. The article on his seizing of power during the 1851 French coup d'état literally links to the self-coup page in the first sentence. What's the threshold/process/holdup on re-adding them? 38.122.126.10 (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the main issue with Hitler and the Nazis is that they came to power using both legal powers (appointment and the enabling act) and illegal action like the thuggery of the SA so it is hard to come down on one side or the other. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-coups in autocracies? How?

"Between 1946 and 2020, an estimated 148 self-coup attempts have taken place: 110 in autocracies and 38 in democracies."

Surely this contradicts the definition given in the previous paragraph: "a form of putsch or coup d'état in which a nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances." The use of the phrases "having come to power through legal means" and "powers not granted under normal circumstances" (emphasis on granted) indicate that whichever editor(s) conceived this definition did not have autocracies in mind, but on the contrary, states with constitutions or at least states without the exercise of arbitrary power – governmental power that can only, by definition, exist in an autocracy. Harfarhs (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Louis-Napoleon

Is there a good reason why France is not included in the list of notable examples? Harfarhs (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar

Is not a "self-coup" because that involves A) the current leader B) maintaining (or attempting to maintain) their position through illegal means. In Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi was the leader and she was ousted by the military, who imposed their own. Additionally, "coup" or "coup d'état' seems to be the preferred terminology by most sources in relation to Myanmar, ex. this and the boatload of sources listed here. In short, a self-coup is a coup d'état, but not all coups d'état are self-coups. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Include US in Template:Coup d'état

Discussion at Template_talk:Coup_d'état#Post_discussion_comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have started a formal RFC on this topic at that talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)