Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt

Requested move 25 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt → 2022 Peruvian political crisis – Seeing the recent discussion regarding various governments not recognizing the Boluarte government, users raising concerns regarding bias, the precedent of the 2019 Bolivian political crisis and also looking at the WP:Coup essay, it may be warranted to change the title of the article to 2022 Peruvian political crisis. WMrapids (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose - This article more so focuses on the actions by Pedro Castillo on December 7, while the 2022–2023 Peruvian protests article focuses more on the aftermath of Castillo's actions. If this were just a one-time occurrence like the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, then a move might be more appropriate. But, since this is just one incident during the wider Peruvian political crisis (2017–present), I think it's best Estar8806 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Estar8806: Would a title like 2022 Peruvian Congressional dissolution attempt oder 2022 Peruvian presidential crisis be more accurate?--WMrapids (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

First one wouldn't fit as it's not only an illegal attempt at dissolution, but an illegal one at imposing a curfew and calling for a constituant assembly to change the constitution. The cosntitution didn't allow that. Besides, it wasn't just a crisis, but a coup d'Etat as characterised by the sizeable amount of source and legal autorities in the country.--Aréat (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong support per nom. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The sources as well as the peruvian supreme court call it a self coup. As for the bolivian events, they're simply not the same at all. There isn't ground for a move.--Aréat (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That's simply your interpretation of it. The Supreme Court of Peru should not be our most guiding reference when it's a question about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. See also WP:Coup. Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not my interpretation, but that of the numerous sources, including those of the spanish wiki. You can't cast aside the opinion of a Supreme court because it doesn't agree with you. The neutral point of view is using the term vastly used by the sources who call it a coup.--Aréat (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Pinging users who were previously involved in similar discussions @Zellfire999: @Alcibiades979: @Krisgabwoosh: @Aréat: @Louis Waweru: @Snarcky1996: @CaribDigita: @Aréat: @StellarHalo: --WMrapids (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Support for consistency- if Bolivian and Venezuelan coup attempts are crises, so is this. However, my preferred solution would be to label all as coup attempts, which they all definitionally are. Zellfire999 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? None of these exemples are the same, while sources and supreme court call it a coup.--Aréat (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Some sources, not all of them. Plus, the Supreme Court of Peru should not be our most guiding reference when it's a question about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. See also WP:Coup. Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

A lot of source call it a coup, including autorities such as the supreme court. What are your sources saying it isn't a coup? And as said above, you can't cast aside the opinion of a Supreme court because it doesn't agree with you. The sources must be follwoed, and they clearly call it a coup--Aréat (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Self coup are coup d'état made by individual already head of state/government. Castillo was head of state and illegaly dissolved parliament, institued a curfew and called for constituent election, going against the constitution on all three point. We've got many sources calling it a coup, including the peruvian supreme court. The title thus fit the events.--Aréat (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong support Indeed that would make for a more "balanced" presentation of the events that occured, and would be in line with the names of the articles describing the dissolution of the Peruvian Congress by Martin Vizcarra in 2019 (named "2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis", not "Vizcarra self-coup"), or the political crises of 2019 in Bolivia and the one ongoing in Venezuela, to cite the most obvious other exemples that come to mind. Also considering the WP:Coup article, as already noted, it should be renamed. Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't be balanced to go against the sources which call it a coup, including the supreme court. The dissolution by Vizcarra wasn't the same event, which is why it isn't called as such. He didn't make a serie of unconstitutional attempts at getting power. He called a dissolution on the basis of the cosntitution, and the crisis came from the diverging interpretation of whether the situation allowed had occured. Castillo dissolved without any ground for it, imposed a curfew and called for a constituent assembly, all three things that he didn't have the power to do and were recognized as both unconstitutional and a coup by the supreme court.--Aréat (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of it, as well as that of the opponents of Castillo, however, the opponents of Vizcarra indeed also called the actions of the latter "a coup". " the crisis came from the diverging interpretation of whether the situation allowed had occured" the same can broadly be said about the actions of Castillo. As for the judgement of the Supreme court, it should indeed be mentioned, but it's not enough to warrant a break from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Therefore, the page should be renamed. Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, stop calling it an interpretation or mine when it's that of the sources. The page shouldn't be renamed because its title is hwat the sources, both legal and mediatic, use, as provided here. The exemple of Vizcarra, Bolivia and Venezuela are stretching factually different situations, per the sources themselves.--Aréat (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Kommentar I'm not going to make any pronunciations in favor or against as I'm not well-read enough on the situation to do so. However, from my experiences dealing with the Bolivia issue, I'd recommend a few considerations:

1. Is the term a point of public debate in the country: I.e. Is public opinion relatively split between regarding the situation as a coup vs. not a coup?
2. Is the term 'coup' integral to a legal case: I.e. Are individuals being prosecuted for promoting an attempted coup and would labelling this article as such hurt their ongoing case? Also keep in mind that in country's where judicial independence is lacking, rulings affirming or rejecting the coup theory shouldn't generally be counted as evidence towards a certain side.
3. What do constitutionalists and academics in the country say: I.e. Do most non-partisan constitutional experts consider Castillo's and/or the Congress's actions to have violated the law?
4. Consider that the actions of a government do not necessarily forgive misdeeds by the previous: I.e. Whether or not Boluarte's government has been repressive and/or oppressive, etc., should not have any bearing on whether Castillo's actions constituted coup.
5. Consider that a coup for the right reasons is still a coup: I.e. Whether or not the Congress acted in bad faith and/or purposefully attempted to stifle Castillo's administration has no bearing on whether Castillo's actions constituted a coup.
6. Consider legal ambiguity: I.e. Did Castillo's actions unambiguously violate the law or could certain legal interpretations affirm his actions? Generally refer back to point three regarding the opinion of constitutional experts when seeking the answer to this question.

Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment. What are the sources for not calling this a self coup? We've got plenty calling it as such, including the peruvian supreme court, and spanish sources.--Aréat (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

A number of sources already in the article indicate clearly that this is not a unanimous characterization of the events. Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

 Note: As the move discussion has been closed and no further changes are allowed, I'm leaving a note to point out that participant Tbf69 (talk · contribs) was blocked of sock puppetering. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Move was hasty and not grounded on sources

@Paine Ellsworth: Where's the consensus? It was 3 in favor, 2 against and with only a few days of discussion. The users requesting for the change provided no sources, as well as comparisons with events in others countries that were easily debunked as completely differents. Such a change shouldn't be done just because of a one user difference with no backing sources and just a weak number. I'm going to ask for a move review. Aréat (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

To editor Aréat: for your numerical count, did you include the nom, which also counts as one support with rationale? In any case, [consensus] on Wikipedia is not a head count. After giving due credit to all the forceful opinions, I found consensus to rename. Move review suggests that this discussion take place on the closer's talk page; however, further discussion in a subsection following the closed move request is not unprecedented. If you would rather continue this on my [talk page], let me know. Is there any other way I can be of help? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A 4-2 opinion after merely three days is still a hasty move. There was very little time to have users involved, and the discussions were still ongoing (!). I don't understand why you felt the need to make the move this soon, when we were still in the middle of arguing the move.
Worse, the discussion has clearly shown a lack of sources backing the move, while we have plenty of english and spanish sources calling it a self coup (auto golpe). The move of a politically charged title shouldn't be made just because there were two more users, going against sources. If we were to just follow numbers against sources, that mean for example any sudden influx of russian user could rename the ukrainian war a "special military operation". Important changes shouldn't be done on the whim of a handful of users, but discussions grounded in sources
I would like the move to be reversed and the discussion to be allowed to continue normally, more than three days. I could also make a call on related projects to have more users participate. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the name was changed from a politically non-neutral name to a more neutral and detached one, that is the whole point. Renaming the article about the war in ukraine "special military operation in ukraine" would be to give that article a very politically biased name, it would mean "taking a side" so to speak, while Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is to give the most neutral possible description of political events. And giving that example contradict your reasoning on another point: after all, there is plenty of "sources" calling the war in ukraine a "special military operation", but simply adding these sources and claiming that it is enough to break the neutrality and rename the article "Special military operation in Ukraine" would of course be ludicrous. I think that it would take more than some sources, no matter the level of "reliability" we ascribe to them, to give a, somehow, "controversial" title to an article about a political event, especially a recent or current one. Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A 4-2 opinion after merely three days is still a hasty move.

This RM began on 25 Feb, a total of eight days before closure, and it was in the backlog list when I came across it.

and the discussions were still ongoing (!).

The most recent posts before closure on the 5th were on the 3rd of February, so discussion had stalled.

the discussion has clearly shown a lack of sources backing the move

Not for anything, but your sources argument, though clearly strong, was effectively rebutted by a supporting editor.

Important changes shouldn't be done on the whim of a handful of users

See no "whims" here, we see a local discussion that built and reached a consensus as defined by Wikipedia. It was my objective opinion that a strong enough consensus valued the proposed title higher than the previous title. Hence the article was therefore renamed. Sincere apologies that consensus was not in your favor.

could also make a call on related projects to have more users participate

This RM has been advertised to both projects at the top of this talk page, WikiProjects Peru and Politics, and additionally on the WP:RM page, since its beginning on 25 February. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It's the complete opposite, the name change went from the neutral name factually used by the sources, to a name that is specifically used to deny the event was a self coup, thus "taking a side". IF you prefer, it would be akin to renaming the Russo-Ukrainian War as a mere "conflict", downplaying the event factually being a war. It remind me of when the Algerian war of independence was called just "Algeria's events" by the french governement for decades. Again, we have plenty of sources here describing it as a self coup, while none was presented saying it wasn't.
Even eight days is extremely short when the discussion was still ongoing without any factual sources being given for the name change. Where do you see that it was advertised on others projects? I see it in neither Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peru nor Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
You say the discussion has stalled. I had answered all users, providing sources and arguments, and they simply didn't answer. That's not a stall, that's playing deaf. Which is no ground to make a move. Otherwise a few users can ask for a politicaly charged name change, not provide any sources, stop answering the enquiries about their arguments, and within two days of silence from them it's settled?
My argument for source wasn't rebutted at all, and clearly this is a discussion that is still ongoing, and should be ongoing rather than ended mid-discussion.
There was no consensus, as shown above. You don't have to apologize for a consensus that wasn't there. You cut the discussion before there could be one, which is why I'm sorry to point out you made a hasty move, but I will have to make a move review.--Aréat (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Where do you see that it was advertised on others projects?

Both of the WikiProjects, Peru and Politics, as well as most other WikiProjects, have sections on their front pages, such as WP:WikiProject Peru#Article alerts. Move requests are included there when they are first opened.

I will have to make a move review.

That is an option, yes, and you have every right to do so. Again, very sorry you think you must take that extra step in the process. Thank you for your consideration! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I'm not necessarily opposed to your rationale for closing the discussion, but perhaps it would have been better to instead notify WikiProject Peru to first see if that would stimulate the discussion. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

WP Peru was notified the first day of the move request, 25 February 2023, in their article alerts. See link above in my response to "Where do you see that it was advertised on others projects?" P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

And both my answer and @Krisgabwoosh:'s own were left pretty much unanswered. What's the point of opening a move discussion when the answer who are against are ignored, then after barely a few days of being unanswered the discussion is closed as settled? We didn't even have the opinion of @Alcibiades979: @Krisgabwoosh: @Louis Waweru: @CaribDigita: and @StellarHalo: who were asked for it. There wasn't even an alert on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, let alone on the discussion page. Things that should have been allowed to happen. Again, I don't understand why you chose to close the discussion after only a few days of discussion, a handful of users, right in the middle of the still ongoing discussion, and without any input from half the people being called to intervene. Please revert and let us discuss the move properly.--Aréat (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do me the courtesy of listening to my words this time: WikiProject Politics was notified when this request first opened on 25 February. On their front page at WP:WikiProject Politics#Article Alerts they were notified of this move request. Requested moves may stay open for the usual minimum time of seven days, then they go in the "elapsed" list. Then after 24 hours they enter the "backlog". That's where I came across this request, in the backlog, because it was more than eight days old. After I determined that there was consensus, I saw no reason for it to be kept open, and I closed it. There had been no new posts for two days, so it was not "right in the middle of the still ongoing discussion". I ask you to read and reread this response as many times as it takes for you to get to the truth of this situation. If after that, you are still too close to it to hear my words, then you are free to do as you wish in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Best to you, Aréat! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aréat The interpretation of the crisis as a "coup" can not exactly be described as a "neutral" stance, to say the least. Not taking sides means not taking sides, you are clearly pushing for a specific interpretation so much so that you even refuse the fact that a consensus was reached here. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok. In that case, if the relevant WikiProjects were already given the chance to discuss, I see no issue closing it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems that Pedro Castillo is being supported in this article

• OAS Secretary Luis Almagro: "The dissolution of Congress is reprehensible and condemnable from every point of view".

• Castillo would later explain his actions, saying that he never attempted to subvert Peru's democracy and only sought "to get closer to the people", stating "I took the flag of the Constituent People's Assembly and gave my speech remembering and being faithful to the people who voted for me, who trusted me. ... I wanted to make the political class understand that popular power is the maximum expression of societies. I didn't want to obey the social economic power groups. I wanted to put the people above all else. ... It was my decision. No one else's. I was nervous, but I did it." There is no indication anywhere that the president knew the unconstitutionality of what he was going to do.

• While Castillo was detained, he denounced a "Machiavellian plan" against him by the National Prosecutor Patricia Benavides, Congress and his former vice president Boluarte. She was the one attacked by the president and the ministers, also by the "alternative press" (press promoted by the former government); I transcribe some (of several) attacks indicated in Resolution 5/2023 of the IACHR/OAS: They gave the following as examples: President of the Republic, José Pedro Castillo Terrones. Twitter/August 2: “The Peruvian people want to know why the tax investigation team of the case of ‘Los Cuellos Blancos del Puerto’ has been dismantled. I hereby notify the international community of these very serious events, about which many are silent.” President of the Council of Ministers, Conference in Puno /September 1 “There are billions who are there, in the Judiciary, and the Judiciary demands more budget, that is, of the money of the public treasury, of the money of all Peruvians, they ask for more budget, and perhaps they  are right; but to understand it, the budget is not given, it is not gifted, in exchange for just nothing, the budget is given in exchange for something, and if the budget is given to the Judiciary and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, to the Constitutional Court is so that  they administer justice decently and do not have those billions for taxes there in the offices of the prosecutors; magistrates, that money belongs to all Peruvians.Statements by the President of the Republic of Peru, José Pedro Castillo Terrones - Statements in Tacna /August 28, 2022. “They  request, pay and manufacture effective collaborators, and when they have them inside they threaten them to go out and tell the  people of the Palace: ‘Hey, I’m going to offer you this much, I’m going to pay you this much, but come and become an effective  collaborator and say that Pedro Castillo is corrupt and say that Pedro Castillo has colluded.’” - Twitter/August 18 “Harassment  continues. Judicial harassment, criminal harassment, they don’t mind breaking up a family. They don’t mind leaving our children  orphans. A situation has been designed in order to break us.”Statements by the President of the Council of Ministers, Aníbal Torres Vásquez: Press conference of the Council of  Ministers/August 31 “The fact that these magistrates investigating drug traffickers have been changed, that is leading people to  validly presume that a sector of drug trafficking has invaded a sector of the administration of justice; we have to clean up our  justice system.” Statements in Tacna/August 28: “How is it possible that the prosecutor [of the Nation] has changed the  prosecutor who had been investigating the sister for drug trafficking (…) A part of the administration of justice sector has been  taken over by drug trafficking, it has been taken over by the corrupt and they are the ones who have taken all the money from the State and have not let us carry out fundamental activities. ” - Statements in Tarapoto/August 26 “In the face of these public  complaints of what happened in the Attorney General’s Office, what is the National Board of Justice doing? Nothing, nothing. And  in exchange for what do we pay them those generous salaries they receive?” (Annex 11) To put in context what was indicated  by the Prime Minister, he referred to the resolutions that terminated the appointments of two prosecutors of the Public  Prosecutor’s Office, ordering their transfer to their original prosecutors’ offices. This decision that corresponds to the owner of  the entity and that constitutes an act of internal administration endorsed by Peruvian law. - Statements after CONASEC/August  22: “The great criminals are free, others, out of suspicion, the maximum of preliminary detention is requested, there is an  exaggerated disproportion, there is political persecution, there are other cases in which facts, crimes are invented. Some  witnesses are being summoned and they have told me how they have been interrogated, they do not seek to know the truth, but  to create a crime, you know for what purpose.” New attacks were reported in para. 21 and 27. (...)
• The international media quoted are mostly leftist and try to give Pedro Castillo justification for his actions. He was only trying to escape justice; he tried to illegally detain the National Prosecutor Patricia Benavides through the DINI, and many other things... Case called “military and police promotions” (ascensos militares y policiales): investigation against the President of the Republic,  the former Minister of Defense, and the former Secretary General of the Government Palace. On July 12, 2022, the National  Prosecutor, Benavides Vargas, ordered the suspension of the initiation of preliminary investigation acts and that the  investigation against the president be carried out for the alleged commission of the crimes Aggravated Trafficking in Influences  or Illegal Sponsorship. - Case called “Petroperu”: investigation against President Castillo Terrones. On July 18, 2022, Prosecutor  Benavides Vargas ordered the suspension of the initiation of preliminary investigation acts and that the investigation be carried  out, for the alleged commission of the crime of Aggravated Influence Trafficking. - Case called “Tarata and Chinese Companies (Tarata y Empresas Chinas): involves the President of the Republic, José Pedro Castillo Terrones; the former Minister of  Transport and Communications; two nephews of the President of the Republic, and a group of congressmen of the Republic  (called “Los niños”). The case was initiated, prior to the management of the Prosecutor of the Nation, for the alleged commission  of the crimes of Criminal Organization and Aggravated Influence Trafficking or Illegal Sponsorship. To date, research activities  have been encouraged. - Case called “Ministry of Housing” (Ministerio de Vivienda): The President of the Republic and the current  Minister of Transport and Communications are being investigated. On August 10, 2022, the Prosecutor of the Nation, Benavides  Vargas, ordered the beginning of an investigation for the crime of Criminal Organization. - Case called “Obstruction of the  investigation” (Obstrucción de la investigación): Investigation carried out against the President of the Republic, the President of  the Council of Ministers; the current Minister of Justice and Human Rights, the former Undersecretary General of the Government Palace, and the former Technical Advisor of the Technical Cabinet of the Presidency of the Republic. The investigation was initiated by the proposed beneficiary, on July 20, 2022, for the crimes of Criminal Organization and Personal Cover-up.

• Mention should be made of the attack on and the rule against the National Prosecutor.
• See also: https://rpp.pe/politica/congreso/diego-bazan-denuncia-que-jefe-de-la-region-policial-lima-intento-impedir-la-llegada-de-congresistas-al-parlamento-noticia-1452269 https://english.elpais.com/international/2022-12-08/what-led-to-the-downfall-of-perus-pedro-castillo.html
• The Economist also the country as a "hybrid regime" after the self-coup. All of the above is not mentioned, and I do not know why.

JasonA34 (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You can add your counterpoints, provided they are correctly sourced and that you do not push your interpretation of the events (that's the same rule for Castillo supporters) as THE correct analysis of the events. Please do not forget: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

However, this does not excuse that the article is clearly biased towards one side, just compare it with the article in Spanish. That's why I left a template/label in the part that seemed most biased of all (indicating that it should be improved) Armando AZ (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Armando AZ (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sock puppeteering.

For example, only two French-speaking media are quoted from what I could read in a section, one of them clearly left-leaning and "anti-American" (as they would say in your country), so it is not an objective media ( besides that only one source is cited).

In addition, we are talking about the media being quoted to judge political trends and accuse them of having a "bias", when at no time are the reasons for said "negative" coverage mentioned (I was in Peru, I know perfectly well the errors and failures that the president committed at that time, in addition to the occasional "jewel" in the form of comments and statements, such as Trump). It's just absurd. Armando AZ (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Armando AZ (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sock puppeteering.

Your argument seems to be that because these sources are "leftist" and "anti-American" - they should not be trusted, and that we should only include the sources that you deem trustworthy. The only "trustworthy" sources are, apparently, the current Peruvian government that removed Castillo from office, the OAS, the Economist, and the National Prosecutor of Peru. Almost all of whom obviously have a bias against Castillo! Two are currently engaged in keeping Castillo behind bars, and the OAS was founded for the explicit purpose of fighting the Latin American left. None of this is reason for their exclusion, you are welcome to add their opinions of events to the article, provided it is presented as their interpretation, not objective fact. My point here is that your goal of neutrality seems to be a cloak for your actual bias. Nothing is wrong with having an ideological preference, but pushing your interpretation of events as the true NPOV and slandering reliable left leaning sources is not collaborative, it is quite disruptive. Without a detailed account of why they should not be trusted, I do not trust you to make good faith edits. Le Monde diplomatique is a high quality source according to the consensus of Wikipedia. Please present a factual case for these sources' removal, if it is strong, I will support you!

Additionally, your lived experience in Peru holds no weight. We describe the consensus of high quality sources, not a string of anecdotes from anonymous people who were in the area. I live in Colorado and think our governor is a right wing goon - but it doesn't matter. I can't go into his article and accuse all the sources describing him as liberal of bias without a strong case. I don't have one, so I don't. Carlp941 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Pushing the OAS or the Peruvian prosecutor as neutral here is very laughable - they are right wing political actors, not neutral. The Economist is much closer to a neutral source, and I think describing Peru as a hybrid regime is more than fair. You are welcome to add these to the article to present the whole picture of the crisis - but this article is not "pro Castillo" - it's quite neutral. Carlp941 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename this article

The name formally should either be its previous name (take the 1992 event as an example) or 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis. Political crisis is a much more vague term and it could possibly get confused with the ongoing crisis.48 Hueb0 (contact me) 21:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. This article is literally biased and the name remains as strong evidence of it. It's extremely confusing for readers when Castillo's actions are the same as Alberto Fujimori's in 1992. LordSidiousOfPeru (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't decide that this crisis is the "the same Alberto Fujimori's [self-coup] in 1992" - that is up to historians, other academics, and other reliable sources. Also, Fujimori was successful and had the support of the military, and was in the context of an insurgency. Avoid WP:SYNTH. If the article is biased (i believe it is not), explain how and cite reliable sources for your claims.

I do not support a name change based off weak claims of bias. Carlp941 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@LordSidiousOfPeru and Carlp941: I have started a move discussion on the issue, where you might be able to elaborate further. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2023

2022 Peruvian political crisis → 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt – There have been concerns that the last move discussion was hastily closed ("Move was hasty and not grounded on sources"), as well as requests for restoring the original title ("Rename this article"). A renewed discussion should provide the necessary input. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Per WP:COMMONNAME. There are plenty of reliable English sources that refer to Pedro Castillo's dissolution of Congress as a self-coup:

• "Peru president removed from office and charged with 'rebellion' after alleged coup attempt". The Guardian. 2022-12-08.
• "What to Know About the Attempted Coup in Peru". Time. 2022-12-07.
• "The Debate - Peru's broken politics: What next after Pedro Castillo's failed coup?". France 24. 2022-12-08.
• "After a bungled coup attempt, Peru's president falls". The Economist.
• "Peru's democracy proves resilient against a president's coup". Washington Post. 8 December 2022.
• "Peru's President Pedro Castillo Stages Self-Coup, Announces Dissolution of Congress". Bloomberg Línea. 2022-12-07.
• "Human Rights Watch Statement on Coup in Peru". Human Rights Watch. 2022-12-08. Retrieved 2023-04-22.

Several non-English sources were also presented in the article's talk page as well.[1][2][3][4][5]

The introduction from the article itself compares Castillo's actions and Alberto's Fujimori's 1992 dissolution of Congress, titled in Wikipedia as 1992 Peruvian self-coup, meaning that there's a precedent for WP:CONSISTENT as well. Additionally, per WP:PRECISION, the current title has ambiguity with the article Peruvian political crisis (2017–present), making it harder to distinguish both. Moving the page to "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt" would solve the issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm aware of WP:OTHERLANGS, but just to provide context of how common the term is, I wanted to point out that thirteen out of fifteen language versions (13/15) of the article in Wikipedia use the term coup or self coup: Spanish, Belarusian, Chinese, Euskera, Farsi, French, Hebrew, Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Vietnamese. Arabic and English are the only exceptions to the norm, the former of which was started by a bot. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• support based on your strong case! looks like this is the common name, WP:COMMONNAME applies, I am fine with the move. Carlp941 (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• oppose exactly one (1) of the source you provided refer to this event as a 'self-coup' and only three of the seven use the term at all—blindlynx 15:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I have put the terms in bold, because frankly I don't understand your point. It should be clear that all the sources I provided use the term, and it should be mentioned that they are only examples of the main ones, as there are many others that use the term too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe i have to say this but 'coup' and 'self-coup' are different things you are proposing a move to 'self-coup' where as the sources you provided use just 'coup'—blindlynx 18:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposing a move to 2022 Peruvian coup attempt would be a bit misleading considering the events, wouldn't it? At any rate, you're free to support that alternative if you wish. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing to Support this. There are enough sources that use 'self-coup' i'm baffled as to why you didn't list them though

• "Peru's Failed Presidential Coup Sparks Democratic Crisis". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2023-03-25.
• "How years of instability came to a head in Peru". Vox. 29 January 2023. Retrieved 2023-03-25.
• "Inside the coup in Peru: 'President, what have you done?'". EL PAÍS English. 9 December 2022. Retrieved 2023-03-25.
• "After failed self-coup: Peru's ousted president seeks meeting with rights inspectors". today.rtl.lu. Retrieved 2023-03-25.
• "High drama in Lima as Peru ousts its president after he attempts self-coup". The Week. Retrieved 2023-03-25.
• "Peru's new president suggests moving general election forward to April". euronews. 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2023-03-25.—blindlynx 18:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have already stated why in the previous debate, it is really unfortunate that some users really wish to make Wikipedia push a specific narrative while the point of an encyclopedia is precisely to be exhaustive in the presentation of existing viewpoints. The fact that some news medias are of the opinion that this must be qualified as a "self-coup" is clearly not enough to take it at face value and name this article according to this specific description of the events, in my opinion. Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Kommentar You should probably assume good faith before making those accusations and dismissing concerns like that. We have provided several sources that use the term, and the contrary hasn't been proven. Here are many other English sources that I found but did not include as examples:[6][7][8][9][10][11] --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus What has not been proven here in my opinion, is if a list of news media sources, no matter how long, that subscribe to a specific interpretation of controversial current or recent events, whatever that interpretation is, is enough to warrant a break from the Wikipedia neutrality principle. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, but propose... There was already a discussion about this move, citing precedents such as WP:Coup and the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, suggesting that the use of the word "coup" is not applicable for this article title. Reviewing the Bolivian situation, there is an article by the Associated Press that states, "A coup d’état is commonly defined as a forceful change in government through the use or threat of violence by a member of the state, often the armed forces. ... Bolivia’s armed forces only issued a statement with a 'suggestion' of what Morales should do. Thus, Bolivia’s 'coup' is largely a question of semantics." With the situation in Peru, the armed forces were not even involved and Castillo specifically called on the military to remain in their barracks in order to avoid violence, with Radio Programas del Perú writing "[Castillo] called the new general commander of the Army ... to ask him to close the barracks in order to avoid possible clashes with citizens". There is also a question about the "vote of confidence", which Castillo claimed to be citing as a second confidence vote surrounding the resignation of Aníbal Torres, allegedly granting him the power to dissolve Congress following a second motion of no confidence. So, as dubious as it sounds, there are still opinions by some that there was some legality to Castillo's actions. These two things, the lack of military involvement or force and the opinion by some that this may have been constitutional, makes the use of "coup" in the title inappropriate.

After reviewing the previous discussions here, one can see a suggestion from @Snarcky1996: rename the article 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis with the precedent of the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis. Both articles, though appearing different at first glance, are actually very similar. With Vizcarra, Congress initially did not recognize his decision to dissolve Congress and nominated their own president, though the military immediately provided support to Vizcarra (a "coup" was also argued in this event). On the other hand, Castillo attempted to dissolve Congress and the institutions did not side with him. There may be conflicting opinions about motive, execution, etc., but that is exactly why the use of "coup" in the tile should be avoided. So, I would like your opinions on this @NoonIcarus: @Carlp941: @Blindlynx:.

Finally, please be mindful that users and projects related to the article were previously notified about renaming proposals and did not participate, so keep watch for possible advocacy edits.--WMrapids (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: WMrapids (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

From wp:coup Use of the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources it's clear that sources refer to this as 'coup' or 'self-coup' with some sort of qualifier. Your argument seem to be based in WP:SYNTH rather than on wp:Reliable sources—blindlynx 15:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: The thing is, it is not widely described as a coup in reliable sources:

• Associated Press– They ask a scholar about the event, who specifically states “technically, it is not a coup”.
• The Guardian– Describes as “alleged coup attempt” and presents the word “coup” in quotation marks. The newspaper also notes the polarization regarding the event and that some believe a coup happened against Castillo, raising the NPOV concerns in WP:Coup.
• The Financial Times– The articles title says it all, “A coup or not? Peru crisis highlights Latin American polarisation”, again raising NPOV concerns and asking whether it really was a coup.
• Al Jazeera– Covering the event as being described as a “coup”, specifically in quotations.
• The Economist– Again, placing the words “coup” and “self-coup” in quotations while also discussing the differing opinions, raising NPOV concerns for potential “coup” in the title.

So no, this hasn’t been widely accepted as a “coup” or “self-coup” attempt by reliable sources. WP:Recentism is also mentioned in WP:COUP, so maybe in the future when there are some scholarly mentions of a “coup”, it can be included, but Wikipedia should not stray away from a NPOV and fall for labeling in its article titles.--WMrapids (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem adding 'alleged' based on wp:RS. The thing is all of the sources you listed use the term 'coup' or 'self-coup', that is how it is described by reliable sources. We should follow them wp:NPOV means personal opinion shouldn't play into this. While scholarly discussion of this would obviously be better it will be a while before there is scholarly consensus. That said there is use of the term 'self-coup' in scholarship.

• Gorokhovskaia, Yana; Shahbaz, Adrian; Slipowitz, Amy (2023). "The Freedom House Survey for 2022: A Turning Point for Global Freedom?". Journal of Democracy. 34 (2): 112. doi:10.1353/jod.2023.0021. S2CID 258184479.
• Barrenechea, Rodrigo; Vergara, Alberto (2023). "Peru: The Danger of Powerless Democracy". Journal of Democracy. 34 (2): 77–89. doi:10.1353/jod.2023.0015. S2CID 258184069.—blindlynx 20:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Some notes regarding this, since I went over the sources again:

• The Guardian's article also uses the term several times without quotes, and notes the comparisons with the 1992 Fujimori coup
• The AP article that you linked is from Axios, and not the AP. I looked into the linked AP article ("Peru’s president ousted by Congress in political crisis"), but I could not find the professor's quote. Instead, it mentions that the Ombudsman’s Office qualified the dissolution as a coup.
• The Economist's article actually does use coup in an editorial voice: Peru deserves help from its neighbours, but they have meddled instead. The populist leaders of Mexico and the others support a coup against democracy when it is by one of their own. They reject the political pluralism that legislatures embody, because their implicit belief is that only the president has real democratic legitimacy. Brazil recently suffered an attempted coup by the far-right supporters of Jair Bolsonaro, the defeated former president. Peru is suffering one from the far left. In Latin America the enemies of democracy lurk at both extremes. You might have missed it due to the paywall, which is understandable. You can use methods such as Web Archive to skip it.
• The Financial Times' article is paywalled too, here's a version that can be accessed: [12] It points out to the countercoup against claims as well, and it doesn't really seem to be taking merit from the definitions, only that nowadays they have become more complicated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I should start by pointing out how different the situation in Bolivia is from the one in Peru. That's the reason why a historical comparison with the 1992 self coup is most ideal; the difference regarding the support of the military is already implicit in the title as "attempt". One dissolution was successful and the other was not, but the actions remain the same. Even yourself first moved the article to name it as a self-coup d'état attempt, which begs the question of why the change of heart happened.

Regarding the dissolution by Vizcarra, as you mentioned, the Peruvian constitution only allows the dissolution of Congress after a second vote of no-confidence. Unlike Vizcarra, this does not seem to be the case with Castillo, which would make the dissolution illegal. There was an argument to support legality its legality, and even in that case coup claims remain. However, I want to clarify that I would support a to start a move discussion in the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis if any editor considers that it should be opened, and I would support said move if it is demonstrated that on an individual basis that it is the WP:COMMONNAME. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

While the rename to "2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis" would solve the issue of WP:PRECISION regarding the Peruvian political crisis (2017–present) article (and I want to thank you for proposing an alternative), it is not as descriptive as a self coup, and we would have to consider how common the term is per COMMONNAME, based on policy. Regardless, I would still like to know what other editors think about the proposal. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Per WP:NPOVTITLE, ”Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors.” With this title we are describing Castillo’s actions (the attempted dissolution of Congress) when deciding between “constitutional crisis” or “self-coup attempt”, not providing a common name. An example of a common name that might be familiar to you would be the Caracazo and Limazo; these are specific names given to events that became common use. However, when one of the largest English-speaking newspapers in the world describes the event as “alleged” or uses quotations when regarding the event as a “coup”, it is clear that not only do we not have a common name, we don’t have a common descriptor. Knowing this, the more neutral choice would be “constitutional crisis”, especially when looking at WP:POVNAMING; ”Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue”. So, I still stand by the proposal for 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis.--WMrapids (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Support: just like with 1992 coup, this one was an attempt, he forcefully tried to. And either way if this isn't a good name then constitutional crisis would be better because the name now can get easily confused with the mainline crisis. 17:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pessi69 (talk • contribs) — Pessi69 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Miggy72 (talk · contribs).

 Note:: As noted above about advocacy, please be aware that user Pessi69 was created just days ago.--WMrapids (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I can live with either self-coup or coup or constitutional crisis. Constitutional crisis seems to be the best term, as laid out by your case, and previous consensus on wikipedia. I support a name change, replacing "political crisis" with "constitutional crisis" Carlp941 (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support: It seems there are a lot of people here trying to whitewash the illegal coup that Castillo tried to do despite being called a coup by all the national press and the courts in Peru. --Yilku1 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Should note to the closer that a move request was just closed on 5 March 2023 as moved to the current title, so technically, this request should be procedurally closed as too soon following a request in which consensus had been achieved. Having said that, it is recognized that a significant number of editors have shown an interest, so rather than close this request, I object to it on procedural grounds. Consensus thought that the current title was the best title only last March, so it's hard to believe that consensus would want to change the title back to what it was in such a short period of time. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the introduction, there were concerns that you closed the discussion too soon, that a consensus wasn't achieved and that there wasn't enough participation. One of the participants even was blocked for sock puppeteering later. Several editors in the talk page did not join the discussion, and even though it was argued that related Wikiprojects were notified, none of the participants seem to be a member of either (WP:Peru and WP:Politics). I also have to remind of WP:CCC, consensus changes, and the fact that there is way more participation in this discussion shows that it was a good call to open it, even if it confirms the last outcome. As a last note, the last discussion was opened on 25 February and closed on 5 March, so we'd be talking about two months and not one. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Those particular concerns were answered with editors agreeing that the discussion had not been closed too soon and that the WikiProjects had been notified on the first day of discussion in February. Yes, consensus can change; however, it is suggested that at least one year should pass after a "moved" or "not moved" decision, and that's because consensus rarely if ever changes so swiftly, so we'll have to wait and see. Need also to remind you, editor NoonIcarus, that you appear to have added a bulleted support just after your nomination, and that must be changed to a comment, because in move requests, the nomination is considered to be support for the move. I've made the necessary change for you. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I told you it was closed too soon, mid discussion, with barely a handful of users. The fact this renewed discussion is happening a few weeks later, with many more users and new ones, and is already considerably larger is quite telling that it was indeed closed too soon.--Aréat (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Since the whole idea is to build an encyclopedia, I think it's a good idea to be patient and wait and see what editors think in this discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course we're working on an encyclopedia. Waiting for the discussion to properly unfold is what I've been begging you to do, without success.--Aréat (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you point me to the policy or guideline on this? I'm not sure "it's just too soon" is a strong objection its own. I think it is especially weak for a current event, but if it's a policy or guideline, I am happy to defer to it. Carlp941 (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There has never been a policy nor a guideline, never a full community consensus for this, although it has been tried several times to come to consensus. So it remains a suggestion in an essay, the closing instructions for move requests found at WP:RMCI. Because of this, reopened move requests almost never actually get procedurally closed. The suggestion is there so that editors' time won't continue to be wasted, and the one year suggested wait is based upon experience with past attempts like this. Your instincts are right, though, that when a current event is involved, things can change rapidly. That's all the more reason to try to practice patience. We are building an encyclopedia, not a news source nor any kind of predictive, crystal ball sort of article for our readers. So far, I think this discussion is proving all this, just as past similar discussions have done. Not going too badly, though, I think editors here are doing a good job under the circumstances. I'll keep a good eye on it, but I won't be closing any more talks here. It's considered bad form to close more than one RM on any given talk page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME from the sources demonstrated by User:NoonIcarus as well as others. Also:

Wikipedia:Coup is merely an essay and not a policy or guideline.

The comparisons with 2019 Bolivian political crisis and 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis are nothing but false equivalences. Neither of those events were similar to this article's subject. Unlike Castillo who not only attempted to dissolve Congress but also enacted a curfew and declared that he will establish an emergency government where he would rule by decree until a new constituent assembly is elected, all Vizcarra did in September 2019 was dissolving Congress and then calling for a new election in January 2020. Unsurprisingly, vast majority if not all of the reliable sources in English do not describe the 2019–2020 crisis as a coup and only includes the word "coup" when quoting the reactions of the opposition.

The only thing that matters here is what is the most common and precise term being used by reliable sources especially the ones in English to describe the article's subject. Using a non-precise term for an event that took place over the space of a single day for the sake of neutrality is just WP:UNDUE and trying to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. Other government-related crises had their own unique circumstances in how they unfolded and most importantly how reliable sources have described them. They cannot be used as a precedent for this. StellarHalo (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The move discussions of Operation Gideon (2020) and the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, which dealt with similar issues, used tables to illustrate the use of terms by sources. I thought about providing a similar one that should help with the visualization, with sources from both the talk page and the move discussions:

  Source refers to the dissolution of Congress as coup in editorial voice

  Source uses other terms, besides coup, in editorial voice

  Source does not refer to the dissolution of Congress as coup in editorial voice

WP:RS/P	Sources presented		Described as coup	Described as another term	Quotes coup	Quotes rejection of coup as term	How the source uses these terms:
Generally reliable	[Impeachment]	Aljazeera			Y		Peru updates: Congress removes Castillo, swears in new president Use of term in article: Quotes vice-president Dina Boluarte and a PhD candidate at Princeton University
Generally reliable	Political crisis	Associated Press			Y		Peru’s president ousted by Congress in political crisis Use of term in article: Quotes use of coup by Ombudsman’s Office
Generally reliable	[Dissolution of Congress]	Axios			Y	Y	Peru's president removed from office after attempting to dissolve Congress Use of term in article: Use by Ombudsman’s office Quotes university professor, saying "technically, it is not a coup." Comparison with the 1992 Fujimori's self coup
Generally reliable	[Self] Coup, dissolution of Congress	Bloomberg	Y	Y			Peru’s President Pedro Castillo Stages Self-Coup, Announces Dissolution of Congress Use of term in article: Comparison with the 1992 Fujimori's self coup
Generally reliable	Coup [attempt], dissolution of Congress	The Economist	Y	Y			After a bungled coup attempt, Peru’s president falls Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("Most Peruvians are relieved that this time the coup attempt failed")
Generally reliable	Coup, dissolution of Congress	The Economist	Y	Y			Peru needs an early election and outside support, not interference Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("Peru deserves help from its neighbours, but they have meddled instead. The populist leaders of Mexico and the others support a coup against democracy when it is by one of their own. They reject the political pluralism that legislatures embody, because their implicit belief is that only the president has real democratic legitimacy.")
N/A Discussion not started	Coup, self-coup	Euronews	Y				Peru’s new president suggests moving general election forward to April 2024 Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("But the former president published a letter on Monday from his detention centre, to which he was transferred after his failed self-coup")
Generally reliable	Crisis	Financial Times			Y		A coup or not? Peru crisis highlights Latin American polarisation Use of term in article: Mentions coup and countercoup claims
N/A Discussion not started	Coup, self-coup	Foreign Policy	Y				Peru’s Failed Presidential Coup Sparks Democratic Crisis Use of term in article: Used in title. Paywalled
Generally reliable	"Rebellion" and coup	The Guardian	Y	Y			Peru president removed from office and charged with ‘rebellion’ after alleged coup attempt Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("[Castillo] was accused of an attempted coup and seen fleeing the presidential palace.") Use by vice-president Dina Boluarte; Castillo's foreign minister César Landa, the constitutional court, a political science professor and opponents Comparison with the 1992 Fujimori's self coup Use by Pedro Castillo, who argued that congress and the prosecutor’s office attempted a coup against him
N/A Discussion not started	Coup	Human Rights Watch	Y				Human Rights Watch Statement on Coup in Peru Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("On December 7, 2022, the then-president announced the temporary dissolution of Congress and the "reorganization" of the judiciary, the Public Ministry, and other institutions, in what was effectively a coup.")
N/A Discussion not started	[Failed] Coup	France24	Y				Peru's broken politics: What next after Pedro Castillo's failed coup? Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("By the day’s end, he was the one out of a job and behind bars for attempting a coup.")
N/A Discussion not started	Coup, dissolution of Congress	El País	Y	Y			Peru's broken politics: What next after Pedro Castillo's failed coup? Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("Speaking to EL PAÍS in downtown Lima in the wake of Castillo’s attempted self-coup", "Castillo was announcing a self-coup and a curfew", "Once the coup failed", "The self-coup had been improvised") Comparison with the 1992 Fujimori's self coup
N/A Discussion not started	[Self] Coup	RTL	Y				Peru's ousted president seeks meeting with rights inspectors Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("After his failed self-coup, Castillo now stands accused of rebellion and conspiracy and has been ordered held in pre-trial detention for 18 months.") Quotes the IACHR, which says that it wishes to gather information "on the institutional crisis and the protests."
Generally reliable	Coup	Zeit	Y				Peru’s President Has Been Impeached and Arrested Following a Coup Attempt Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("Peruvian President Pedro Castillo sparked fears of a coup Wednesday after temporarily dissolving Congress just hours ahead of an impeachment vote") Use by Castillo's foreign minister César Landa, the ombudsman’s office and a professor of Latin American studies
Generally reliable	Coup, self coup, crisis	Vox	Y	Y			How years of instability came to a head in Peru Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("After an attempted self-coup ending in the arrest of former Peruvian President Pedro Castillo in December", "Castillo, who remains in jail after his failed coup attempt")
Generally reliable	Coup	The Washington Post (Opinion article by editorial board)	Y				Peru’s democracy proves resilient against a president’s coup Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("Peru’s armed forces and police unequivocally refused to support Mr. Castillo’s coup attempt") Comparison with the 1992 Fujimori's self coup
N/A Discussion not started	[Self] Coup, dissolution of Congress	The Week	Y	Y			High drama in Lima as Peru ousts its president after he attempts self-coup Use of term in article: Editorial voice ("The move was immediately recognized as an attempted "autogolpe," Spanish for self-coup, a form of coup d'état by a president to stay in power.", "For attempting the coup, Congress ordered Castillo placed under arrest.") Use of Peru’s Defender of the People, Eliana Revollar, vice-president Boluarte, and legal experts

One of the things that I missed but were commented by other editors (see the archives) is the use of the term by Peruvian instutions, such as the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman's office, besides Castillo's own foreign minister. I'm not including the non-English sources, which also go at length to describe the situation as a coup.

This should be another demonstration of the widespread use of the term by the reliable English sources. Pinging editors from the talk page and previous discussions that have not participated to share thoughts: @Jaredroach, Braganza, Elelch, Zellfire999, Alcibiades979, Louis Waweru, Kawnhr, LLs, BastianMAT, CaribDigita, Aréat, Yilku1, JasonA34, Kawnhr, and Krisgabwoosh: --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• support going back to previous title "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt". It's backed by sources both local and international, as well as the peruvian supreme court. The recent move was made mid discussion with no sources provided, only the general feeling that it wasn't fair that a few particular other pages weren't also named coup, which can be discussed on their own pages but isn't an argument here, per WP:OTHERCONTENT.--Aréat (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment I'm curious to see what Peruvian outlets themselves say, it might give better insight from their own perspective. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support: I'm reticent to rehash an argument that I've already made several times earlier in this talk page, so I'll keep my comments brief. The vast majority or Reliable Sources call this a coup, as does the Constitutional Court of Peru. I, in a previous post, supplied a number of RSs from Brazil, Colombia, Peru etc. I see NoonIcarus as well as a number of other editors making a strong argument based on how Reliable Sources are terming this event. The counter argument seems to be more petty fogging the question by creating an arbitrary distinction as to whether or not the word coup is prefaced by self followed by some other arguments that lack sourcing. What more is there to say? We follow the sources or we don't and only one side of this discussion seems to be relying heavily on sources. Pedro Castillo was facing an impeachment vote so he dissolved congress, declared that he would "reorganize" the courts and prosecutors office and announced that he would create a new constitution, this was obviously declared illegal and a coup by the Constitutional Court of Peru he was then impeached and arrested when trying to flee to the Mexican embassy to claim asylum. So honestly, what are we even discussing here? Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: The graph you share is not accurate. The Guardian clearly says in the article that it was an alleged "coup", so they are not voicing that a "coup" had occurred. If you could @NoonIcarus:, please fix this mistake.

Also, this shows that there is not a clear consensus by reliable sources that his could be described as a "coup" since, with the "Generally reliable" sources you present, 5 of 11 (or nearly half) do not explicitly present the event as a "coup". Again, using "coup" in the title would be a pretty blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:POVNAMING because we are discussing a description here, not a common name. WMrapids (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Coup" or "constitutional crisis"?

It seems that there has been various opinions shared in the discussion above, so this section has been created to assist the closing administrator.

There are two main proposals that have received the most support in the discussion:

• 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt: Proposed by NoonIcarus, who suggests that WP:COMMONNAME would be applicable because of reliable sources describing the event as a "coup", that WP:CONSISTENT would suggest the use of "coup" due to the similarities with the 1992 Peruvian self-coup article and that the "coup" description in the article title would be applicable due to WP:PRECISION, which would clarify between similarly titled article, such as the Peruvian political crisis (2017–present) article. They also suggest that the linked articles in other languages also use the "coup" description in their titles, though the user notes the recognition of WP:OTHERLANGS. (expand/clarify on this summary as you'd like, NoonIcarus)

I believe this is a good summary of the position and the arguments, thank you kindly for providing it. I would only want to clarify that WP:OTHERLANGS is an argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions, but there isn't anything that I'm aware that is against (or for, for that matter) in move discussions. The point that I wanted to make is that I'm not arguing to move the page only due to the fact that other Wikipedia versions use the proposed name, but rather that I provided it as an example of how common the title is, even in other languages. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll add WP:POVNAME here per blindlynx's input below. Even though neutrality shouldn't be an issue given how common the term is, it deals with the positions of WP:NPOVTITLE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis: Proposed by WMrapids, who suggests that per WP:Coup, the title may violate WP:NPOV and ignore one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars as there are widely differing opinions on how to describe the event since there is not a common name. WP:NPOVTITLE states to determine if a title is "derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title" and since there is no common name for the event, the use of "coup" in the title is a description, so per WP:POVNAMING, "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue". WP:CONSISTENT was suggested due to the similarities with the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis article.

To organize the choices of support users decide, here are some tags to be used to assist the closing administrator:

• Coup: to support the move to 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt:
• CC: to support the move to 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis
• Other: to support a suggestion of you own (2022 Peruvian presidential crisis has also been suggested, similar to the Venezuelan presidential crisis)

To assist with previously involved users in this current discussion, they will be tagged here: @NoonIcarus: @Carlp941: @Blindlynx: @Snarcky1996: @Pessi69:

Thank you to everyone participating!--WMrapids (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

---

• Support CC Carlp941 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• CC: Per proposal and discussion above. Again, it is also important to note that no military was involved in the events (Castillo ordered the military to remain in their barracks to prevent violence, in fact the Congress-nominated Constitutional Court actually called on the military to act against Castillo), that reliable sources actually don't agree on describing the event as a "coup" and that 44% percent of Peruvian respondents agreed with Castillo, making this a contentious topic amongst Peruvians that definitely raises NPOV concerns if we do not have a neutral title.--WMrapids (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• (Coup) Non-support: There are civil coups and "golpes de timón" ("change of tack" un Spanish), let's not forget what Hitler did in Germany too. Invoking emergency powers, trying to shut down parliament and changing the constitution are typical acts of a coup. 186.32.48.176 (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Sock of Armando AZ (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sock puppeteering.

  Furthermore, at no time did the troops act against Castillo, it was the police themselves who caught him trying to flee. It may be questioned why he did it (for example, they did promise him support and then withdraw it), but what is clear were his intentions. 186.32.48.176 (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Constitutional crisis" implies that there is a conflict between two existing laws. In this case, what there was was a rupture. 186.32.48.176 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  There were conflicts between existing laws regarding the interpretation of the motion of confidence, especially regarding whether they were constitutional at all. That was part of the basis for Castillo's actions.--WMrapids (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Coup 186.32.48.176 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 186.32.48.176 (talk Sock of Armando AZ (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sock puppeteering.

  what does Hitler have to do with this article or how we title it? Hitler also did not come to power via a coup, so it's pretty clear you are invoking the spectre of Hitler to make a dubious moral equivalence between Hitler and Castillo. Please follow Wikipedia policy, not your political preferences. Carlp941 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that the point they're trying to make is that coups do not always need military support and are providing an historical example for it, even if it can be confused with the Godwin fallacy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  It is a poor example that is a classic Reductio ad Hitlerum. Carlp941 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly what I said what it can be confused with, but not the main point. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• (CC) Support CC Carlp941 (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Duplicate vote: (see above)
• (CC?) Oppose "self-coup", it does not feel recognizable. Rather, it feels like a term that requires explaining, which is not great in a descriptive title. Searching simply "December 2022 President Castillo" on google, I see no use of "self-coup" over the first couple of pages, although I do see a couple of "coup"s. "Political crisis" and "Constitutional crisis" both feel like more accessible alternatives. CMD (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• (CC) Oppose "self-coup" as being politically charged; support renaming article 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis per WMrapids above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• (CC) Oppose self-coup due WP:NPOV Pessi69 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC) — Pessi69 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Miggy72 (talk · contribs).
• Coup: (Self-coup) per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION, as stated above. Castillo tried to dissolve Congress, which was exactly what Alberto Fujimori did in the 1992 Peruvian self-coup. The lack of military support is already implicit by definition in "attempt", and does not change the nature of the actions. This precedent addresses the concerns of WP:NPOVTITLE. I'm worried that the term "constitutional crisis" has not been demonstrated as the most common term, per reliable sources, and the possibility of WP:SYNTH has also been expressed in the talk page. Lastly, while this is common knowledge in these discussions, I have to remind that the outcome of the discussion should not be determined by an amount of !votes, but by the weight of the arguments based on policy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Again, the use of "coup" has not been widely accepted. Generally reliable sources per WP:RSP (i.e. mainstream reliable sources) even recognize the NPOV issues with calling it a "coup"; The Guardian describes the event as an "alleged coup attempt" while Al Jazeera made sure to place "coup" in quotations while discussing the event. Another concern would be Pedro Castillo is still awaiting to face trial for his actions, so creating a title with "coup" in it would be Wikipedia determining the guilt of Castillo before a trial even occurred. And again, "coup" is not a common name (like Caracazo, Limazo oder Andahuaylazo), but maybe a common descriptor at best by some sources, though descriptors in an article title need to be NPOV per WP:POVNAMING. Regarding WP:CONSISTENT, this event is pretty similar to the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis as both events involved the dissolution of Congress, both were described by some as a "coup" and both did not involve the military (one of the main components necessary for a coup). And yes, we can be aware that the !votes seem fairly convinced, especially since some have changed their previous decisions for "coup" to now support CC.--WMrapids (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• To add to the WP:CONSISTENT argument, we already have the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis, but can also add the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, the 1993 Guatemalan constitutional crisis, the 2011–2012 Papua New Guinean constitutional crisis and the 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis. All have been described as coups by some, though they have not had it in their article titles.--WMrapids (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I at least support this. It is better to consider it a blow to the constitution than a "political crisis." I think it is the intermediate option that best fits the case (even so, there are many things to fix in the article regarding certain sources), but it is a way to neutralize it. Armando AZ (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Armando AZ (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sock puppeteering.

  Another way would be to name it as a "constitutional coup", or also as a soft coup. Armando AZ (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Armando AZ (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sock puppeteering.

Comment: I am not swayed by dubious historical analogies. Fujimori's coup was successful and had the support of the military. Additionally plenty of coup attempts have had military support and have failed. That may not be a complete argument against calling it a coup attempt, but it is certainly not "exactly like Fujimori"

I am also not moved by WP:SYNTH - no one is synthesizing sources, CC is a widely accepted NPOV term on other similar events. I am particularly sensitive to NPOV in ongoing events like this, and calling it a "coup attempt" does not address my concerns, particularly when precedent is not on your side. I would ask that you present evidence of WP:SYNTH, or come up with a case for why a particular common term (coup attempt) is so necessary to include in the title that it overrides very strong precedent in titling ongoing world events. Carlp941 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You can see blindlynx's comment above if you wish to delve into this, and ask them about your concerns. It does not mean denying the use of CC as a term in other articles, but how appropriate it is to use it in this one. Regarding the analogy, if it was so dubious it would probably not be in the article's introduction to start with, added none other by the article's creator and main proponent of CC as a term. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course I placed that to provide some balance to maintain NPOV in the intro. As for the previous title move, that was an issue with Wikipedia:Recentism on my part. However, after reviewing the situation and seeing the NPOV concerns shared by other users, I made the successful proposal to move the title to its present form. WMrapids (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to rehash this analogy over and over again, so I am going to repeat myself with my main point.

I am not swayed by the analogy, and I am not convinced of a strong case for bucking precedent. I would ask that you present evidence of WP:SYNTH, or come up with a case for why a particular common term (coup attempt) is so necessary to include in the title that it overrides very strong precedent in titling ongoing world events. Carlp941 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• (Coup) the problem is that WP:POVNAME is a policy and every single source uses the term 'coup' in some capacity—even the one that says it's not a coup still calles it that! [13] Unfortunately that is what this common name of this event. It's also worth pointing out we shouldn't be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS—blindlynx 15:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• I did not recall WP:POVNAME as a policy, it answers directly to those concerned that the term is not neutral, even if that given the gravity of the actions I argue that the title is descriptive instead of biased. An excellent example of this is the Boston Massacre, it is just the most used term. Any other accepted terms can be included without prejudice in the article's lead. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  If you read through the policy, this is because the Boston Massacre is the common name given (these names are capitalized because they are common, proper names). Now if this event were to be called "Castillo-azo", or something similar, then that would be a common name, but the description that this event was a "coup" is just that, a description. Using "coup" in the title would not be following WP:NPOVTITLE and would not respect the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. WMrapids (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• (Coup support, against CC) what Castillo tried to do was against the constitution he wasn't allowed to dissolve the parliament (yet) and there is no constitutional crisis if all branches of the state (military, police, court) side with the parliament and he was arrest within hours Braganza (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Other naming options could be Constitutional coup and Soft coup, both of which have their own Wikipedia articles and have similarities with the case of Peru.--- Armando AZ (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Armando AZ (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sock puppeteering.

 Comment: This still does not take into account WP:NPOV regarding the weight that the word "coup" has a descriptor. Also, there is not much of a precedent with such descriptors in an article title, so it does not help with WP:CONSISTENT in the same way "constitutional crisis" would. WMrapids (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Two of those that exist are the 1953 Pakistani constitutional coup and the one in Nepal in 2020; the latter being very similar to the case that occurred in Peru. Armando AZ (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Armando AZ (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sock puppeteering.

This could be an alternative commpromise, if the community decides so. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the gesture towards compromise, the issue is the inclusion of the word "coup" - so this is not a compromise. Carlp941 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Coup: : As stated above, per the sources both local and international, as well as the peruvian supreme court. Proponents of CC provides opinions but no sources, and arguments closing in WP:OTHERCONTENT--Aréat (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  The Supreme Court is not cited in the article, but the Constitutional Court (which is a direct party to the conflict and nominated by Congress in a dubious manner) did make such statements WMrapids (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Also, your argument of WP:OTHERCONTENT would apply towards the original nomination of this move for WP:CONSISTENT by NoonIcarus, so I'm not sure that you want to try and make that case. WMrapids (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Coup: For the same reasons as stated above. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)