Talk:Self-coup/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Boris Johnson

This is factually inaccurate, and not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards.

Courts have determined that prorogation of parliament is indeed lawful [1]

Adding Johnson to the list is propagandist and not objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.222.250 (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I have many problems with this article, and I would be inclined to agree with the removal of Boris. However, the inclusion is in line with many other entries (e.g. both entries for Napoleon, the 1st Iran entry).

The definition of self-coup given in the article does not line up with the definition on wiktionary which is: "A coup d'état in which a lawfully-elected head of state seizes power from the other branches of government."[2]

This definition does not require any illegality, but only the seizure of power from another branch of government. Now, what seizure means is debatable, I think it will end up in a hole pit of tautologies.

Anyway, the point is, if we remove Boris then a large number of entries must be axed by the same criteria.

Also, one court =/= "courts", there are legal challenges in multiple other courts, and it is expected that the ruling will be appealed.

(Honestly, I don't know if this article should even exist) Lalichii (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to include it; if prorogation without the implicit consent of Parliament (which, I should point out, hasn't happened since 1831) didn't count by itself, Johnson indicating he wouldn't obey the law certainly would. This is the sort of stuff that, if it happened in Eastern Europe, would get a lot of thinkpieces in the British media about strongman dictators. Indeed, there are articles both in and out of the British media comparing it to Erdogan in 2016, and H.A. Hellyer has made parallels to MENA coups too. Sceptre (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that the Scottish Court of Session has now found that the prorogation was unlawful, I honestly don't see how Johnson's actions don't count now. Sceptre (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruling finding that the prorogation was unlawful precisely because it sidelined Parliament is, to my mind, even more reason; @Lalichii:, you made your comment before the courts had ruled on the issue; what's your opinion now? Sceptre (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: as you surely know, Wikipedia requires assertions of fact, such as this, to be supported by reliable sources. That is: we need agreement that the consensus amongst reliable sources is that this is a coup. We certainly cannot imply any such thing supported by nothing more than the unattributed opinions yelled by anti-Bexit protestors or daubed on their banners and placards. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: There's actually a good CNBC article here which details that, outside of the UK, the European press were using terms such as "coup" or "powergrab". We also have an expert on contemporary Arab politics comparing it directly to Arab-style coups, and an expert on British public policy also calling it a coup. We also know that the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful precisely because of its effect on the democratic order. A comparison to Venezuela is probably apposite, in this case; given sources being what they are, the only real reason against Johnson's inclusion is the general British sense of "it can't happen here". Sceptre (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: I don't see any mention of Arabs there, so all we have is a tangential reference to one leftist Flemmish tabloid then, that's not the consensus amongst the RSes that we need. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto:: Where's the sources for calling Maduro suspending the National Assembly a "self-coup"? Sure, the Venezuelan opposition are calling it a coup, but there's an alternate theory that Maduro's actions are completely legal and any talk of a coup is just right-wing troublemaking. IMO, that's a coup too, but you get my point, which is that when you have out-of-country news talking about it being a coup, and reliable European news sources using words such as "coup" or "dictator", then there really is no reason to not include Johnson, especially if we include Maduro. Sceptre (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Maduro has nothing to do with the UK situation, and we do not currently have evidence of a consensus amongst RSes to support the statement, as if incontrovertible fact, that the UK has suffered a coup d'état. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: There's no evidence among RSes to support the statement, as if incontrovertible fact, that Venezuela has suffered a coup d'etat. Sceptre (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: why is he in here then? And whether he is, or he isn't, is irrelevant as far as the question as to whether the UK has suffered a coup d'etat - as claimed in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

See to this version of the article in order to see international news describing it as a coup https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-coup&oldid=913336868 Lalichii (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lalichii: I think we need more opinions on this. I'm not sure that we have a consensus amongst the reliable sources - as required by WP:NPOV - that supports an assertion, in Wiki's voice, that the UK has suffered a coup d'état. I think if it had, it would be bigger news, especially in the UK, the US and other English-speaking countries and amongst its allies. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I mean, there was a lot of coverage of it that ran with the "very British coup" descriptor. Sure, they were quoting John McDonnell, but what's the difference between that and the NYT running with Juan Guaidó's assertion of a coup? Like I said, the only reason not to include Johnson, in comparison to Maduro, is the idea that "it can't happen here". Sceptre (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: you need to be able to distinguish between factual reporting and opinion pieces using terms such as "coup" figuratively - or as figures of speech. If you can show a selection of RS news reports (not opinion pieces or reports of the things anti-Brexit protesters were saying or had on their placards or the indignant outpourings of anti-Brexit MPs or politicians) from sources with a cross-sections of editorial political leanings, that report things like "The UK suffered a coup d'état today..." or very similar, then we might have a sound starting point to consider that this might be a worthy entry in this article, but currently we do not. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Let's consider it as a generality: there is a head of government at odds with the majority of legislature, and, to deal with the tensions with the legislature, the head of the government, without legal basis, suspends the legislature. The suspension of the legislature is controversial and leads to protests on the streets, a regional trade bloc starts investigations into the government for suspending the democratic order, and reliable international news sources talk about a burgeoning coup by the head of government and report about the opposition protests against him. Now, am I talking about Maduro, or am I talking about Johnson? We have sourcing that's adequate enough that, if this course of events happened in Latin America, we'd include it; arguing against including it it happening to a Western European country just smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Sceptre (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: it's nothing to do with liking it, or not - it's to do with the consensus of fact amongst the reliable sources. If it's as clear-cut as you seem to be suggesting, then you'll be able to provide those by the barrel load - but currently we haven't seen a single one. Remember, Wikipedia articles need reliable sources and not personal POV, original research or synthesis. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: This is special pleading. If an American broadsheet quoting the Venezuelan opposition is good enough to substantiate a statement of a Maduro self-coup, why would the Australian version of the BBC quoting the British opposition not be good enough to substantiate a statement about a Johnson self-coup? Sceptre (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: no it is not 'special pleading', it is Wikipedia policy. Your argument suggests, not that we have sufficient RS coverage for your POV about the UK, but that we haven't shown that there a consensus amongst the RSes to support the Venezuelan case. Relying on what opposition politicians say about the actions of a government is like relying on what Man City supporters say about the prowess of Man U players - it's never going to be reliable, accurate or even honest. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Removing Maduro would be highly disruptive, though, because it was a self-coup and we have the sources to substantiate it. Just like we have the sources to substantiate Johnson. It's only a Western European systemic bias that demands more for Johnson than we do for Maduro. Sceptre (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Six out of 10 references are for the "Boris coup". This cannot possibly be a sign of good quality for this page. The very same "coup" is under judicial review, as pointed by all the references and in this talk page - with the UK judiciary considered independent by all, it does not look like any other coup in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnologos (talk • contribs) 09:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added notice of this discussion to the following talkpages of related articles: Talk:R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, Talk:2019 British prorogation controversy and Talk:Boris Johnson. Please add it to related pages that I may have missed. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, for what it's worth (zero, per WP:NOR), Johnson's behaviour was disgraceful but I don't see tanks in the street or martial music being played continuously on the BBC. So, per WP:DUCK, it is not a coup. This addition is going nowhere, let it go. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not the definition in the article. If it was, we'd have to remove Ukraine 2010, Cambodia 2017, and Sri Lanka 2018. FWIW, Sri Lanka is another good point of comparison: the executive tried to seize power from the parliament by making it unable to meet, and was rebuffed by the independent judiciary. In any case, we have the sources to sustain the inclusion of Johnson, and, like I've said previously, opposition to its inclusion seems less like following independent sources, and more like "it can't happen here" being turned into editorial policy. Sceptre (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The opposition has the power to hold a vote of no confidence in the current government, but has chosen not to do so on two occasions despite being invited to do so by the PM. Therefore, there has been not been a self-coup.--DavidCane (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@DavidCane: The existence of a VONC process does not make this not a self-coup. What makes something a self-coup or not is when an executive – often unlawfully – seeks to disrupt the democratic order through the assumption of extraordinary executive power, which is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled Johnson did. From there, is the assertion of a self-coup verifiable? Yes, to the extent Venezuela and Sri Lanka are, and arguably more than Ukraine is. Again, this seems like another WP:IDONTLIKEIT/"Britain can't have coups because it's Britain" comment. Sceptre (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Please don't assume my opinions. Britain certainly can have coups and did when Charles I was deposed by Parliament and arguably when James II was deposed by his daughter and son-in-law. There were others. The definition in the lead is: "dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances". The PM has not "dissolved the national legislature", nor was he attempting to do so (under the Fixed Term Parliament Act he does not have that power), nor has he assumed "extraordinary powers". The proroging of parliament was longer than commonly takes place, but it was itself a normal power of the executive and was not even carried out under abnormal circumstances. Before the Supreme Court established a law where convention had previously stood, there was no law to be broken. I'm not going to, but some would argue that the "democratic order" has been disrupted by the efforts of those that are seeking to delay/prevent the default arrangement that the UK leaves the EU at the end of October (e.g. the Benn Act).--DavidCane (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@DavidCane: But Johnson did render the legislature powerless by proroguing it, a move that was found to be unlawful. You might not agree with the ruling, but it's emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. All I'm looking for is some sort of encyclopedic rule that we can apply which allows the inclusion of Maduro but disallows the inclusion of Johnson, and nobody has really offered that rule. Sceptre (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Marbury v Madison relates to US Constitutional law. The US has a written constitution, the UK does not. the M v M decision dealt with an act which contradicted the constitution. The UK's Supreme Court's decision was that prorogation carried-out in accordance with the parliamentary procedure as set out in Erskine May (paragraph 8.10) was unlawful when measured against a test that it itself had just established. Before that decision, the convention was as per Erskine May, which makes no caveat on the reasons for prorogation (and even allows for further prorogation whilst parliament is already prorogued). It also allows for "Even when Parliament stands prorogued to a specified day ‘for the dispatch of business’ it may similarly by proclamation be prorogued to a later day." So under the procedures in Erskine May as they stood at the time of prorogation, the prorogation of parliament was legitimate even when it "obstructs" the business of parliament. For his action to be a self-coup, would have required the PM to know that what he was doing was against the rules, which, at the time, according to Erskine May, it was not.

I think one of the many factors that distinguishes Maduro from Johnson is that Johnson has not used the Supreme Court to usurp parliament. Also he does not arrest and lock-up his opponents or operate an armed militia to quash public protest. Is it really that difficult to distinguish?--DavidCane (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the prorogation wasn't "legitimate" before last Tuesday. That's the complete opposite of what the Supreme Court found. Johnson used the Queen to usurp Parliament, but the principle is the same. In any case, your proposed rule would necessitate the removal of the Sri Lankan self-coup last year, as that was no military involved then. Sceptre (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: My point was that despite the Supreme Court's ruling everyone thought it was because the procedures said it was. This is not a criminal matter and no punishment has been imposed, but an analogy would be that one cannot be punished for an act that was not an offence at the time one committed the act - i.e. things are legal until they are not.

Perhaps the definition of self-coup needs to be revised if it cannot separate between the Sri-Lankan constitutional crisis and the PM's prorogation of parliament in a way that the rules at the time said he could.--DavidCane (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC) [Edit] Also, I have not proposed a rule. My comment about Maduro's use of the army and militias was to point out the absurdity of trying to equate the two.--DavidCane (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, that would be disruptive editing because there are sources to substantiate Sri Lanka's inclusion. Like I said, I'm not convinced there's a reason to not include Johnson which isn't a glorified "I don't like it" argument. Sceptre (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Look, this is the article about governments and leaders who sack or otherwise countermand the function of the rivals and opposition, particularly in the other branches of government, to permanently and actually seize power. Boris opposition left as a form of political protest. Those remaining have not abolished or otherwise sacked, barely even disrupted, the functionality of the Lords and the legislature, and extra-ordinary laws have not been assumed (shake that up please). A recent Irish prime minister tried to only 4 or 5 years ago, but Enda doesn't seem to make the list here. Hmm. Boris and his bikes, trying to overtake the whole city. Is an autocoup something a patsy does, or is a patsy something an autocoup does, to check the nature of the reaction? Does an autocoup in fact, squeeze your binary system, from both sides for a while, until you cry J'Accuse, at which point, you can be used... Not easily, but nonetheless, you started it.  Done ~ R.T.G 06:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Once again you make the claim the my position is some sort of “I don’t like it” argument. The Personal Taste guidance works both ways - for and against. I’ve explained why I think it should not be included - in summary, because it wasn’t a self-coup in practice or in intent. The PM was doing what the parliamentary procedures allowed him to do. He was stretching the procedures for political advantage, but that was permitted - just as the Speaker’s decision that the Benn Act did not need Royal Consent was stretching convention. No one has as yet, as far as I can see, provided reliable sources that state that it was a coup. There has also been plenty of criticism of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the decision was justiciable (for example, see the Policy Exchange report by John Finnis on the unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court’s decision).--DavidCane (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@DavidCane: You're making an argument for a political forum, though, not Wikipedia. We have the following facts: a) Johnson unlawfully suspended Parliament to make sure it didn't act against him; b) there are reliable sources outside the country that talk about this being a coup. This is the same as happened for Venezuela and Sri Lanka. In the circumstances, removing just one of the three is either pushing a domestic POV (what Johnson did was not a coup), or a geopolitical POV (Britain can't suffer coups). Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the sources, but you don't seem to be sticking to what this article says, that such a coup is defined by taking control of or disbanding other branches of government (parliament, honour, and law in most "Western World" examples, those and voting watchdog in many others). Why don't you remove all of the ones which do not fit that, if you have indeed been reviewing them, and simply link to the ones which are similar in the "See Also" section? I can't see what else will stand to accuracy, and for the article itself, nothing will be lost except a shortening of the list... This was part of the original response above and has been completely washed over, not totally dissimilar to what is happening with certain controversial government bodies at the moment. ~ R.T.G 16:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: You appear to be going around in circles. You keep claiming that I am taking the position that Britain cannot have coups, which is not the case as I gave two examples above. I have given you a detailed explanation of why his actions ought not be considered a coup. Let’s boil this down to one word: intent. The intent of the PM was political, but he did not, as Madura did, abolish parliament nor did he close down TV stations as Sirisena’s and Rajapaksa’s supporters did. You seem to be trying to use the fact that the Sri-Lankan parliament was prorogued during the constitutional crisis, to establish equivalence with Johnson’s actions, but the Sri-Lankan prorogation was after the unconstitutional replacement of the Sri-Lankan PM. It was not the entirety of the matter. --DavidCane (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@DavidCane: I'm "going around in circles" because people are failing to provide some sort of policy-based rule that can include Venezuela and Sri Lanka but exclude the UK. Listing characteristics of what proper coups contain or need to contain based on some mental image of a coup that includes tanks rolling into the capital and the army shooting protestors, and then comparing various examples to that, is original research. A very British coup it may have been, but a very British coup is still a coup. You can wax philosophical over the Supreme Court ruling all you want, but it nevertheless remains the fact that: a) Boris Johnson rendered Parliament powerless, b) that such an action was unconstitutional precisely because it disrupted the separation of powers and rendered the executive unable to be scrutinised by the legislature and c) we have reliable sources from outside the UK that talk about this being a coup. The rest is just a game of Anglocentric soggy biscuit. Sceptre (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: I gave you the policy-based reason for why the UK doesn't qualify for this list - there is not a consensus amongst reliable sources supporting the assertion that a coup d'etat took place there - and that is required by the Wikipedia policies at WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto:: But there is. Indeed, there were originally concerns in this section that we were using too many sources in the past! I think over-citation is unseemly, and took action to cut down on citation bombing; that should resolutely not be taken as reason to remove verifiable information from an article. If one or two citations quoting the likes of Gauido is fine enough for Maduro, then demanding more for Johnson is just moving the goalposts in order to push an Anglocentric point of view. Sceptre (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: none of those were reporting it as fact though, they were either opinion or reporting protestor opinion or using the word "coup" figuratively. Or can you point out three you think support it being stated as fact in Wiki's voice? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: None of the sources I can find for Maduro or Sirisena's self-coup "report it as fact", try again. It seems like you're looking for one rule for Venezuela and another for the UK. Seriously, I can't believe that we're having this discussion after an executive's suspension of the legislature, as an incontrovertible legal fact, found to be unconstitutional and unlawful precisely because it rendered the legislature unable to undertake its constitutional functions. It's arguably a bigger WP:NPOV violation not to have this example in. Sceptre (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Wiki policy doesn't give exemptions from its strict verifiability criteria for new content based on one's personal POV of the verifiability of other article content, so until the consensus is that verifiability has been established, then the disputed content cannot be added to the article. As I've said before, if it is true, then the RSes will be available in abundance, and you can bet that the British press would be the first to feature it. Now let's start seeing some strong supportive sources, or perhaps close it or escalate this dispute to the next level. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Wikipedia policy also doesn't contain exemptions for NPOV. The UK's inclusion in this article is verifiable, and it is literally only special pleading that is the argument to the contrary of that. Unless a bright-line rule can be given to allow Venezuela and Sri Lanka (and, when it gets added, Peru), but not the UK, I'm forced to assume the UK's exclusion is POV-pushing. Sceptre (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: You spend a lot of your time casting aspersions about other people’s motives and building straw man arguments to break them down. Your whole tone is becoming disparaging: “waxing philosophical”, “Anglocentric soggy biscuit”, “some mental image” preceded by accusations of “I don’t like it”. This is not necessary. I do not disagree with you about the Supreme Court’s ruling. I have given you a test to measure against - what was the Prime Minister’s intent when he prorogued parliament - to make a coup or to take some political advantage from the timing of the party conferences by using the procedures that were available to him? Much has been made about the total duration of the intended period of prorogation, but parliament would have been in recess anyway during part of this period. With regards to reliable sources, did the Supreme Court say it was a coup or attempted coup? No. Did the Court of Session say it was a coup or attempted coup? No. --DavidCane (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

You should re-read the Supreme Court judgment, specifically, paragraphs 55–61, which categorically rejects the argument that prorogation was lawful because conference would have gone into recess anyway. At best (UKSC), prorogation was unlawful because there was no constitutional justification for abrogating the legislature's constitutional duty of scrutinising the executive. At worst (CSIH), prorogation was unlawful precisely because the motivation of the executive was to abrogate legislative scrutiny. The time for arguing over whether Johnson's actions were justifiable or constitutional was ended by the Supreme Court over a week ago; given the assertion is verifiable, and other similar instances of this happening have been included, inclusion is the only remedy to the NPOV policy. Sceptre (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

We do not follow sources. We review them. While it makes sense to take them for granted most of the time, they are all still under review. Newspapers in particular are not strict about accuracy word for word. To sell the news you sell the stories. It's not difficult to understand. If I said, "The UK government found controversy when a team of advisors consulted the queen and convinced her to begin a slightly longer summer recess.", It would not be nearly as catchy as, "Boris Johnson successfully coups the British with a single lie." Amazing isn't it? ~ R.T.G 16:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Boris Johnson - convenience break #001

@Sceptre: the UK case isn't a special exception, it must be supported by RSes as all other entries must - and that is a bright-line rule. It's not acceptable to say that, despite a lack of sources, as there are similarities between the UK case and another case in the article, then it must be included - because that relies on OR and POV pushing. Similarly We cannot take a handful of fringe views from fringe publications and say they represent the mainstream take on this - because they do not - it is giving that view undue weight if it is not the consensus in the mainstream RSes. If you don't think there is RS support for the Venezuela or Sri Lanka entries then start a new discussion to argue those cases, but they have no bearing on on the UK case. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The publications aren't fringe, though; they're reliable sources that, looking through the RS Noticeboard, have even been used as benchmarks to figure out the reliability of other sources. There's no real difference, RS wise, between the NYT reporting on the Venezuelan opposition accusing Maduro of effecting a coup and CNBC reporting on the British opposition accusing Johnson of effecting a coup, and it's POV pushing to insist on more stringent rules for one than the other. Sceptre (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Now you're edit warring and have violated WP:3RR, accusing other editors of POV pushing whilst you're clearly doing the same. The article used as a source contains nothing more than two selected quotes from one newspaper: "a very British coup" (de Morgen), and one website "The Johnson Coup" (Independent - the Independent no longer publishes a print copy). That's it. Neither of theses quotes are linked to the articles from which they are extracted. That does not constitute a reliable source.--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The article used as a source for Maduro only quotes one newspaper, the New York Times. I've asked multiple times for an acceptably objective encyclopaedic rule that can exclude the UK but not exclude Venezuela/Sri Lanka/Peru, and nobody has offered one; from that, the only assumption I can make is POV pushing from people engaging in special pleading and tendentious editing because they have some instinctual belief that the UK is unable to have constitutional crises. Sceptre (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: That's not a justification for edit warring. Also, interestingly, if you search for a De Morgen article under the "Johnson pleegt zeer Britse coup" that was trumpeted so loudly on CNBC and others on De Morgen's own website it cannot be found. Google can't find it either except in the image search. Was there actually an article or was it just an eyecatching headline?--DavidCane (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The phrase translates to "Johnson commits a very British coup", which at least is a quotation of McDonnell (which still puts us on the lower level of NYT quoting the Venezuelan opposition). The CNBC source actually details that in continental Europe, the "coup"/"strongman dictator" analysis is universally shared and it's only the UK where people are arguing it isn't; of course, supporters of Maduro would tell you the exact same thing about him, too, and that Guaido/VNA is actually the only one trying to effect a coup. Sceptre (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: I know what it means. So in this context, a comment by a member of the opposition front bench declaring that it is a coup makes it a coup if a newspaper headline quotes him. Hardly a very substantial argument. You are also over-reaching and moving the goalposts:

• The CNBC article cherry picks quotes without context - two of which happen to include the word "coup". That does not make it a coup.
• You say that: "[t]he CNBC source actually details that in continental Europe, the "coup"/"strongman dictator" analysis is universally shared" (my emphasis). It does not say that. The third bullet point under "Key Points at the top says "In wider Europe, most news outlets were sternly opposed to the prospect of Britain’s government potentially suspending parliament." (my emphasis). The same wording appears in the body of the article.
  • The CNBC article, though, only makes reference to six continental European newspapers (1 French, 1 Belgian, 2 German, 1 Dutch and 1 Spanish). This constitutes a tiny fraction of the newspapers in Europe not "most" and does not demonstrate the universality of opinion you ascribe.
  • The analysis attributed to El Pais is "Johnson had challenged the opposition and closed parliament by surprise". Not really the stern opposition claimed by CNBC and not the "coup"/"strongman dictator" analysis you claim.
  • The commentary attributed to Liberation, is "delivering Brexit had become more and more difficult with Johnson at the helm". Again, not really the stern opposition claimed by CNBC and not the "coup"/"strongman dictator" analysis you claim.
  • Presumably, these were the best quotes that Sam Meredith could come up with in the time available, hardly comprehensive or universal. Stern opposition from a small minority of news outlets however strongly worded does not make it a coup.
• Now you're equating anyone who disagrees with John McDonnell's position with being a supporter of Maduro. Interesting that, because that is exactly what McDonnell is, a long time supporter of Maduro, as is the leader of the opposition, the shadow home secretary and the shadow justice secretary.

--DavidCane (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on otherwise reliable sources so as to push a POV is still tendentious editing. And whether John McDonnell supports Maduro or not is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and is a deliberate misreading of what I said; the obvious reading is "supporters of a government are not going to be likely to admit to effecting a coup". All I'm looking for is a consistent set of criteria for inclusion; the only ones that have been given on this talk page either allow all four of Venezuela/Sri Lanka/UK/Peru or disallow all four. Sceptre (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

None of these rags have the authority to determine what a coup is, so they can report it is a coup all they like, it still isn't if it isn't. We do have to determine that situation. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:NEWSORG. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[13] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:... ...claims that... ...would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in... ...politics... This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." WP:EXCEPTIONAL. ~ R.T.G 01:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: it's not an aspersion on the source, it's pointing out the way in which it has been abused to purport to support a statement that it was not even making. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: the validity of the Maduro entry is irrelevant to this discussion about the UK entry, take that discussion to a new section. Here we are discussing the lack of RS for the UK entry. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: the article cited is only a reliable source for the opinions it gives - and that's all it is giving - opinions of what a handful of other publications are saying. And to suggest that is good enough to support the controversial entry here is ludicrous, at best. Now please do the honourable thing and self revert - as you risk 3rr action having now got to 4. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

[EC] @Sceptre: There is, as a yet, no reliable source in the article demonstrating that a self-coup occurred when the PM prorogued parliament. The CNBC piece is a summary of quotes and comments from other sources. I say “piece” deliberately because it is barely an article as it simply collects and re-reports comments from other sources. Of the comments it provides from continental European news sources, one of the two which is used here to establish a coup has disappeared. It is not “casting aspersions” to question the validity of the source - especially when it has made such a minimal collection and presents that as “most”. It is not “push[ing] a POV” or “tendentious editing” to ask an editor that wishes to present a case, to demonstrate with reliable sources that that case is factually accurate. So far, you haven’t done that. To accuse others of POV pushing and tendentious editing is a bit rich, when you clearly have a POV and have engaged in tendentious editing of the article yourself (violating the three revert rule). You keep calling “for a consistent set of criteria for inclusion”; then draw some up. You have been an established editor here for a long time - you know how this works.--DavidCane (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: It's fundamentally clear from this conversation that the vast majority of people disagree with you. You are an established editor and you should know fine well that Wikipedia works via WP:Consensus. This is not a case of everyone being biased against you and claiming that others are pushing their 'point of view' contrary to yours is certainly not following guidelines on WP:AGF. If you're too politically invested to think clearly and impartially, then simply don't contribute to these kinds of articles. There's plenty more articles which need actual constructive work done to them. I reverted your edit, if this continues it might be wiser to get an administrator involved to restore order. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Also particular, this is not the article on coup itself. This is the article about leaders who are appointed as de facto royalty per personal request or threat. Although I will maintain the inaccuracy, what you are actually talking about is called a silent or, soft coup, apparently. I've started a relative discussion on the talk of that page. If you are freshly interested in this subject and willing to drop any bias, your input may be very helpful. ~ R.T.G 11:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@ChieftanTartarus: I agree with Sceptre, and I find your revert message slightly worrying. "Wikipedia is not a place for you to placate your own personal bias, sourced or not". If the sources are reputable and assert the position of it being a self coup, then we should list it as a self coup. Regardless, this exact argument occurred with the alleged Turkish self-coup a few years back. I think either we include all of these asserted self coups or we just drop the list component of this article. If a list is really wanted we should just drop it to 5 or so prominent historical examples that aren't going to end up in a weeks long back and forth argument each time an allegation is levied. Lalichii (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lalichii:I have quoted the relevant guides above dated 01:17, 4 October 2019, as to wether the sources are reliable for this information or not. Wether they are considered reputable or not is before that point. Your suggestions are arbitrary in the extreme, and without apparent reason. ~ R.T.G 15:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lalichii: the only sources we seen so far are quoting opposition or leftist opinion, we haven't seen a consensus amongst REes reporting, as a statement of fact, that the UK has had a coup. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't establish a local consensus to ignore a global policy. I've asked for a rule that we can apply across the board that can exclude the UK but not exclude Venezuela, Sri Lanka, or Peru, and nobody has given one despite multiple requests for one; they're too busy attacking otherwise reliable sources. AGF is not a suicide pact, and the best-faith assumption I can make at this point is a heavy case of systemic bias from editors who seem to believe that British democracy is so advanced it can't suffer constitutional crises, despite what sources are saying. Sceptre (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: which global policy are you referring to? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV; the removal of reliably sourced content because you don't agree with it is POV pushing, especially when unsourced content is in an article. Sceptre (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre: even if that was what NPOV means, it isn't a problem here because we haven't got reliable sources saying there was a coup in the UK - all the current source does is report opinions (i.e. POVs) from opposition/leftist press. That itself breaks NPOV as it relies entirely on one side of the argument. And as you well know, the fact that there are masses of other unsourced content in the article doesn't imply that new unsourced content is therefore permissible. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It's sourced as well as the Maduro entry. Sceptre (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have detailed this above in quotations dated 01:17, 4 October 2019, with no uncertain terms. Except perhaps the word rag, but I'm not going to open any more of my nonsense at the moment. The given definition will be fine in this circumstance, a derogatisation of media. It's not been a coup. ~ R.T.G 16:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to question the reliability of the sources, the Reliable Sources noticeboard is that way, but I doubt you'll get much purchase there. Sceptre (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lalichii and Sceptre: Both of you have been POV pushing and hi-jacking this article over the past month, quite frankly people are sick and tired of your attitudes and aggressive editing practises. I warned you that I would get administrators involved if both of you did not cut this out. Clearly you both failed to get the message. Therefore I will be notifying administrators. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

And just to clarify, NO ONE is questioning the reliability of your sources, we're disputing tabloid and newspaper wording which is commonly used as 'clickbait' to get more views on an article. And because such content is disputed, it is YOUR responsibility to bring it to discussion and NOT add it to the article until a consensus has been reached, rather than irrationally engaging in an edit war with the rest of Wikipedia. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC) *EDIT*Additionally, one source (which is all you have provided) is simply not good enough for disputed and possibly biased information. If you cannot provide additional sources or without reasonable doubt prove to the rest of us that it was somehow a 'coup' then this information simply should not be in the article. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"No one is questioning the reliability of your sources, except me, who's implicitly disputing the reliability of your sources". I'm still waiting for that policy-based reason that can be used to remove the UK and only the UK; give me that, and we'll talk about removing it; before then, removing sourced and relevant content, especially when unsourced content is in the article, is, at the very least, disruptive editing. Sceptre (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@ChieftanTartarus: "Additionally, one source (which is all you have provided) is simply not good enough for disputed and possibly biased information." If you scroll up (Lalichii, 30 September 2019), you will see the version of the claim which had 14 sources. Only one source is used in the current version so as to not overreference. Lalichii (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lalichii: but the current reference doesn't support the fact that it is being cited for. All that can be verified from it are the opposition/leftist POVs reported in a very few overseas newspapers. And that fails WP:POV in spades. Can you offer a handful of reliable sources, with editorial persuasions from across the political spectrum, that unequivocally state as a matter of fact that a coup d'etat has taken place in the UK? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Fully protected

I have protected this article for one week to avert the edit-warring that has been going on for several days. Editors are encouraged to seek consensus and if necessary get an RfC started to get more editors involved. If a consensus can be reached before the protection expires, it may be removed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Boris Johnson

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.

---

The previous discussion has not amounted to a consensus and has lead to more conflicts than resolutions. So I feel that a Request for Comment is in order. The question is as follows: Did the recent attempted act of prorogation amount to a 'self-coup' attempt by Boris Johnson? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, in so much as the suspension of the Venezuelan National Assembly by Maduro, the Sri Lankan Parliament by Sirisena, or the Peruvian Congress by Vizcarra also were. It is a incontrovertible fact that the prorogation was unlawful precisely because it excessively abrogated Parliament's constitutional duties. It is also a fact that international media picked up on the opposition (both in and out of Parliament) calling it a coup, in the same way that the NYT reported on the Venezuelan opposition (both in and out of the VNA) alleging Maduro was effecting a self-coup, and we also patently have those sources. In those circumstances, I maintain that it is an NPOV violation to not include the UK whilst including the Venezuelan, Sri Lankan, and Peruvian examples. Sceptre (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As a blithely naive and chauvinistic American. I have absolutely no idea or interest in British politics or Brexit, outside of the amusement provided by the MSM as it reports on the shenagins.I followed this conversation from ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=919803703&oldid=919801981#Harassment_by_User:ChieftanTartarus_on_Talk:Self-coup and frankly have no opinion on the subject, which appears to be Boris Johnson. I did notice a revert by ChieftanTartarus, a revert which still stands. I can revert his revert if anyone believes it is justified as I am not involved in the edit war, or let it stand if interested parties feel it is valid.Oldperson (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not revert. Sceptre was warned above for breaking the three revert rule for restoring the contentious inclusion .--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• No for these reasons as outlined in various comments above:
  • Similarity to other events is irrelevant. For example, the prorogation of the Sri Lanka parliament happened after the attempted replacement of the Sri-Lankan Prime Minister; it was secondary to it and not the primary event.
  • That the Supreme Court decided that the prorogation was unlawful has not been disputed (though there has been criticism already of this decision, the impartiality of the members of the court towards the issue of Brexit and the President of the Court has unwisely expressed political opinions after the the decision was published). The court called it unlawful. It did not call it a coup.
  • No scholarly or legal reviews of the situation have been presented that describe the actions as a coup.
  • As explained above, the full extent of the evidence that this was a self-coup is one citation to a summary article by a writer at CNBC. This is the only evidence that the has been presented that the "international media picked up on the opposition (both in and out of Parliament) calling it a coup" The CNBC article contains six unlinked cherry-picked comments from six continental European news sources which it describes as "[i]n wider Europe, most news outlets were sternly opposed to the prospect of Britain’s government potentially suspending parliament" (note that six newspapers does not represent "most" of Europe's news outlets). Of the six quotes, two of these, from El Pais and Libération are commentary not the "stern opposition" characterised in the CNBC commentary. Three of them are critical; Volkskrant is quoted as calling it a "powergrab" and a "sly move", Deutsche Welle (a broadcaster rather than a newspaper) is quoted as having a headline "Boris the dictator" (actually not quite the wording used) and Der Spiegel (a weekly magazine/website) is quoted as saying "Johnson had 'threatened the wrath of the street'—and the 'rage' of the opposition" - in the context, this seems to be suggesting that there would be public protests. The final quote from De Morgen is where the claim that "international media" has called it "a coup" originates. The CNBC commentary referencing De Morgen is "Belgium’s de Morgen newspaper described the tactic as “a very British coup.” This appears to originate from a headline. The article is not linked from CNBC, but a facsimile front page can be found via google images, which shows a headline of "Johnson pleegt zeer Britse coup" (though as a search term, this does not generate a result on the De Morgen website). This translates to "Johnson commits very British Coup". This appears to be a reference to the title of a book, A Very British Coup. All of the articles quoted are editorials or opinion pieces. The majority of the sources are described by Wikipedia as being left-leaning:
    • De Morgen: "Centre left", "left leaning" and "a left-wing slant"
    • Libération: "Left leaning"
    • El Pais: "leaning towards Europeanism, progressivism and social-liberalism" and "centre left"
    • de Volkskrant: "centre-left"
    • The two German sources are not classified by Wikipedia but are described elsewhere as:
      • Der Spiegel: "centre left"
      • Deutsche Welle: "conservative" (small c) - also state-owned, so more likely to oppose Brexit.
  • It is, therefore, not surprising that news sources with a different political position to the centre right Conservative Party would be critical.--DavidCane (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  @David Cane: What are the criteria for determining if a publication is left or right. In the USA there has been a massive propaganda effort,successful at that,to cast the main stream media (MSM) as left, the current admnistration calls it fake news. However these labels (left or right) are inaccurate. Virtually all outlets, print, , over the air, cable, internet (and I exclude blogs) are owned by a small number of corporations and corporations are run by executives who answer to and are rewarded by the board of directors. What we have is corporate media. Media that advances the economic and social goals of its owners/stockholders. There are some genuine left wing media, but they are few and far between. One such is Free Speech TV, which is supported solely by contributions from viewers. I am not familiar with European media, but I suspect that it is either state owned or controlled, probably a good portion owned or controlled by corporations, the exception being those owned by Rupert Murdoch. AFIK Rupert has his own social economic agenda.My point is that the notion of a left wing or liberal media in the USA is perfectly contructed myth (lie), is there a European corollary?Oldperson (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The NYT – which is liberal in an American sense – is almost certainly too right-wing for Venezuelan tastes (I believe their editorial line is supportive of Guaido), but the NYT is still reliable enough to substantiate the Maduro entry. Whilst political leanings can be taken into account when determining a source's reliability, having a political leaning contrary to something isn't a disqualifying factor; otherwise, we'd have to remove all of the Telegraph citations in the article on Jeremy Corbyn. Sceptre (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sceptre and David Cane:As regards the NYT. Apparently there are two NYT's. The editorial page is "rightist" (corporate establishment", the news department actually reports the news. Perhaps in the age of the Trumpian "fake news",anyone or any source that actually reports facts and news can be categoried as "leftist". If so then shades of Germany 1933 and god help us.Oldperson (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• No, per WP:LABEL. There is simply no need to expand the meaning of the word "coup." Adoring nanny (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• It seems like a self coup requires someone to appoint themselves royalty, or something very close to that situation. This spanner in the works is not the same amount as a melt down, and any support of making out like it is, is POV pushing with an alterior motive. The relative guides here on Wikipedia are actually quite coversome of this situation, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:NEWSORG. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[13] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:... ...claims that... ...would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in... ...politics... This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." WP:EXCEPTIONAL. ~ R.T.G 20:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

RTGI take exception to your statement" a self coup requires someone to appoint themselves royalty or something very close to that". I don't know your nationality, but suspect you are influenced by your personal situation(UK maybe?). An authoritarian dictatorship is not something like royalty. In the modern era royalty, at least in lst World countries are checked by Parliaments.

In an authoritarian dictatorship, any parliament is simply a PR device for tubber stamping laws and diktats. Hitler's Reichstag and Stalins Politburo are examples. And both examples were self coups. Self coups are always aided and abetted by the nations power brokers (powers to be, corporations, bankers), including media.Oldperson (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

An authoritarian dictatorship may be a badness, but a badness may not be considered authoritarian dictatorship solely for that fact. I would mind anyone to fear a truly sham government in any country, but if they've kept it so secret, that even you don't really know the facts about it... it's kind of difficult to stick to the facts because, if there aren't any, we'd better watch out. If you really felt anything for the world of the Reich, you would not be able to compare it to this world as though you were suffering that. It's in the air they used to say, a sort of stench many of them came to love. Remember what Thailand was considered and used as a few decades ago? Well that's what Germany was in the world that spawned the Reich III. It was dirty and rotten at the same time. Europe had the riches, but in those days it was a pit for so many peoples. If the leaders of Europe dictate everything to a people who have little interest in it, what's their job description then? Do you know what politicians are supposed to do when they go to Europe? Vote, all day. Vote, vote, vote, vote... I never heard about it until I was looking into something else. I bet they feel silly sometimes, pretending they read these bookloads of stuff they only vote on to follow the lines of these faraway new "parties". Not a secret. There may be many unpleasantries going on in connection to this event but, a Reichstag it is not, and to say so for the sake of POV is not acceptable on Wikipedia. "What are you doing in Europe?" , "Well, getting paid to represent our people as we come together in Europe, us politicians." Some may say the real coup is across the board for those who stay. There's more evidence to support it. ~ R.T.G 01:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Where I live are not the greatest lovers of the UK, but most of us are no fools about the situation. We depend on the UK financially, and socially and culturally. The same guy who is proud that the Irish did not declare war on Germany in times past will often be just as proud of the volunteers who joined the Allies. I am not following a bias on my UK sensibilities or otherwise. It's not been a coup. This site is sacred. You can't controvert it for righteousness or, well we've already done all that in this world, and understanding that is one of the reasons this doesn't fly. It's an educational site, and not open to blatantly manipulated content. ~ R.T.G 13:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• No for Boris Johnson. No for Peru. I do not see this being verified in any sources. Venezuela has many sources supporting the idea that Maduro performed a self-coup, but this is also controversial. I cannot make a judgement for Sri Lanka as I have not read about the situation. However, the events in Peru and the United Kingdom are not described as "self-coups" or anything similar in reliable sources. You only see these descriptions in political rhetoric.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• No, it is simply sensationalism. You will notice coup is presented as 'coup' or "coup". NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• No This is a matter for sources not for opnions. You could ask for the opinion on the sources but that doesn't seem to be the case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes for Boris Johnson. Had the proroguing not been halted by the courts, the parliamentary opposition would not have been able to perform its democratic function and this would have left Johnson to govern effectively unopposed. Zazpot (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, obviously. // Hippo43 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 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.

Validity of the article

I have strong doubts about the validity of this article. It's a long list of very different facts, many of which do not appear to conform to the definition given at the beginning of the article. And it is almost totally unsourced. Seudo (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I was in the process of adapting the article to a table form with links to each self coup but put it on the back burner, I think it would cut down on the problems with validity by requiring linked articles on each coup. I also believe the definition needs to be refined (perhaps using the wiktionary "A coup d'état in which a lawfully-elected head of state seizes power from the other branches of government."). Do you think it would be worth continuing the project? Lalichii (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm more than two years late to this discussion, but I'd support gutting most of the examples. This isn't "List of self-coups" - prose would be much preferred to a wall of unsourced and unexplained bullet-points. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 05:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns above. It has been tagged for years, so I've removed the unsourced examples. Please don't add them again without sources - this has been going on for 3 years. --hippo43 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur with User:Hippo43, above. CIreland (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think that recent examples, I.e. Donald Trump, could be more politically based instead of being based on the definition of the term itself, most coups are more organized than, saying that we'll demand that they'll do the right thing. KingEid (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The classification of Trudeau invoking of the Emergencies act as a coup is wrong. It did not give him personal power but rather increased the power of the state. Further a coup is generally a military act, hence the categorisation of this article, or involves illegal activity. Trumps actions might count as an attempted coup but Trudeaus does not

The list of events

[3] - I agree that the list must be formatted uniformly. Hence the appropriate link (rather than only dates) must be provided for each entry per WP:MOS for lists. For example, the explicit link to Coup of 18 Brumaire (rather than a blue link to dates) should be provided for first entry. And so on. Any objections? My very best wishes (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Tunisia

Should we add the latest events or wait?--ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)ZeusAmmon1