Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:36, 23 April 2023

A news item involving 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 December 2022.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Peru Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Peru To-do: edit history watch purge Assess and prioritise articles (log) Check for copyvios at Special:Contributions/Priscilla D, tag as {{Db-copyvio}} where appropriate Create: Expand: new articles; top importance articles FAC / FLC: Peru national football team GAN: Merge requests: Amazonas before the Inca Empire, Chachapoyas culture Review: Shining Path, Universitario de Deportes Translate: National University of San Marcos Work on Lima, the current article improvement drive Wikify: articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

• 2022 Peruvian self-coup d'état attempt Castillo TV.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Constitutional Court of Peru calls for military intervention

Do we have text (and a source) for the reasoning and/logic (e.g., mention of a specific law) for why the constitutional court called the order to dissolve congress illegal? Some sources (e.g. NYT) are writing that BOTH the president has the right to dissolve congress AND congress has the right to impeach the president. Why did one prevail over the other in this instance? Jaredroach (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jaredroach: if i got it right, the president has only in some circumstances the right to dissolve the congress which weren't given Braganza (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

According to peruvian constitution (article 134) the only case in which the president can lawfully dissolve congress is when it denies the vote of confidence to two president's cabinets. That event never happened, therefore Castillo's decision was illegal. It was a coup d'etat.--Elelch (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Article name

I have no issue with this being called a self-coup, I think it probably fits the definition. However, it concerns me that this is getting hit with that description while we have the titles 2019 Bolivian political crisis and Venezuelan presidential crisis (and especially its sub-article, the absurdly titled 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt). There is plenty of non-Western media that does not call this a coup (and calls the subsequent impeachment itself a legislative coup). To be clear, I think this is a stretch, and that Castillo's actions are a self-coup attempt, and that Western media has this one right, but it seems as though Misplaced Pages's standard is increasingly that media in the Global North should get per se preference over that of the Global South.

It is clear, definitionally, all three events are coups or attempted coups. However, it is almost an exact mirror image of the Venezuelan crisis (where one branch of government unconstitutionally tried to oust another) and a much less obvious coup than the Bolivian case (where the leadership of BOTH the executive and legislative was forced out with military backing). But Misplaced Pages calls one, the one attempted *by* a leftist, anti-US leader a coup and refuses to use the term with the other two, which were *against* leftist, anti-US, anti-OAS governments. Again, I think all three events qualify as coups, and Misplaced Pages should use its own definition of a coup to identify them all as such. But it feels like the line chosen by media in the Global North has become the line Misplaced Pages uses. Zellfire999 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Tentativa de golpe no Peru: 3 pontos para entender caos político e prisão de Pedro Castillo
• Presidente do Peru fracassa em tentativa de golpe e acaba destituído e preso

These are the two biggest papers in Brazil, both calling it a coup. English sources get used on the english page because the plurality of users only speak English. But that's not to say that other sources aren't extant.

Clarin- left leaning paper in Argentina:

• Golpe de Estado en Perú, minuto a minuto: crónica de un día de caos que terminó con Pedro Castillo preso en la misma cárcel que Fujimori

El Tiempo- one of Colombia's biggest papers:

• Perú revierte el intento de golpe de Estado de Pedro Castillo, ¿qué viene ahora?

Q'Hubo - Colombian, has salacious stories almost entirely local

• El expresidente de Perú, Pedro Castillo, fue detenido tras intento de golpe de estado

As far as South America goes I'm only really familiar with Colombia and Brazil, but what Pedro Castillo did is widely declared as a coup. You're free to use any of these sources if you'd like, I'd be happy to translate should you need. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In the end, Misplaced Pages's article names and information come down to sourcing rather than our own definitions. Reliable sources in both Peru and outside of it seem pretty clear-cut around calling this event either a coup or self-coup. While I can't say I know much about internal Venezuelan press, obviously sources outside the country refer to it much more ambiguously. Similarly, the subject of coup vs popular uprising remains deeply contentious in Bolivian press and international coverage of it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources are calling it a coup that ousted a president. Also, there is no source about a "self-coup." Talk⁄Louis Waweru 07:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It is sadly because pro-US (more precisely, pro-US-mainstream-politics) bias is ignored when establishing whether something is a reliable source. And while these sources may be mostly reliable when describing events, the assumption of their reliability is also silently extended to interpreting events. As a consequence, there is an implicit "something is a coup iff it is called a coup by pro-US sources" soft rule.

It seems that the replies above miss the point of the OP, seemingly ignoring what is said already in the first sentence. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering the president of the peruvian supreme court called it a coup, it isn't a matter of whether the sources are pro-US. Not that it has been proven that they're all pro-US or that it is a bad thing.--Aréat (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to look at what local press (assuming its independent) refers to the situation as. For example, Peruvian press seems pretty united on calling this a coup, while Bolivian press, in contrast, is far more skeptical, with even more charitable publications like La Razon presenting mixed view points. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

To me it's the other way around, both the Spanish and Portuguese wikis call his action a coup in Wiki voice, it's the English language wiki particularly on the Pedro Castillo page that's bending over backward to call this anything other than a coup, which seems almost patronizing given the fact that the Constitutional Court of Peru and the new President have both termed it as such. Furthermore there's always this argument of "oh we're using predominately english language sources on the english wiki" but I only see one editor here posting South American sources, the only problem I have with the argument is of course on the english speaking page more english speakers more english sources, but if you want more non-US sources, without sounding overly abrasive, please read El Tiempo, read Folha de S. Paulo, find papers published by UFRJ or USP or Universidad de Antioquia use them here instead of making talk page threads about their absence. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have issue on the fact that oncly simple mention is made on the fact that very small mention is made that Castillo's speech not only disolved congress, but also called for intervention on on the judiciary power effectively 199.52.13.135 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree the "self-coup" is problematic as is inherently biased against what is an ongoing pattern of parliament and president battling using the same articles in their constitution. The reporting shows that which side is right has countless interpretations. It also shows the congress has 1% approval rating among voters, is hostile towards Castillo, and has tried this twice already. To call the lawful use of Article 134 a self-coup is imaginary and unsupported. No response validates the "self-coup" verb, which is invented in the title. Where does "self-coup" inherit support by default from? We're talking about a democratically elected president whose ousting has resulted mass dissent causing civic breakdown with dozens of dead protesters, asylum for the ousted president, and regional peers all calling his ousting a coup. We have many leaders of the Western Hemisphere calling his removal a coup, and there are none calling his invocation of Article 134 a self-coup. Either side has credible support for their view of defending against a coup. It's bullshit to pick a side. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 06:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In line with the page "2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis" wich describe Martín Vizcarra dissolution of Congress, and is certainly not named "President Vizcarra self-coup", and in line with the Misplaced Pages aim to maintain a non-partisan description of events, and especially current highly controversial and conflictual events, I am also in favour of renaming this page to something like "2022 Peruvian Constitutional Crisis" while also acknowledging that several sources and political actors have described it as a "Self-coup attempt".

Snarcky1996 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"Lead figures"?

Aníbal Torres and José Williams are listed in the infobox as "lead figures" in the event, but they aren't mentioned in the article body at all. So what makes them lead figures? If there's nothing to say about them, perhaps they should be removed. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Plan Verde

During the presidential administrations of Humala, PPK and Vizcarra, Fujimori was not a majority, even during the government of the former who led the congress was the Gana Perú ruling party. Put better sources that seek to relate the Green Plan with later assumptions. They are mixing data on purpose. — LLs (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Mensaje a la Nación del presidente Pedro Castillo, 7 de diciembre 2022.webm

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Radical change by a user

A user is radically trying to change this article from, a self coup to his own intepretation of all of this being a "constitutional crisis" as per his comment. The article has long been fine, without any edit wars, and backed up by reliable sources and posted on the news page. Now this guy is trying to convince everyone that it was lawful. He has been warned by me, @Aréat:, @Hi, future humans!:, @Alcibiades979: and reported on https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring, for breaking WP:3RR, which he again did here, . He has reverted more than 6 times in a day. He rejects seeking a consesus, only stating that his edits is right to everyone, that all scholars, reliable media that have branded it as a coup are wrong, and he is right, stating he knows more than the whole media. Although scholars repeatedly say it was unlawful, just as the constitutional court said, as no vote ever occured. As he is unwilling to seek a consesus, I will start a discussion here, and add in my opinion on the report.BastianMAT (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias and lack of any representation for opposing views

This doesn't meet any of wikipedias quality guidelines for bias. It presents the entire topic from a completely one-sided point of view (that Castillo attempted a coup). There are 33 countries in latam and 14 countries have condemned the removal of Castillo as a coup, not his actions. This is nearly half of the region in opposition to the contents of this wiki article stated so matter-of-factly! The lack of quality standards on wikipedia lately, with incredibly biased articles like this one, are a very large contributor to the growing lack of faith people have in wikipedia when it comes to any political topic. This entire article should be reworked from the ground-up without so clearly taking up one side or it should be deleted. 2A02:C7C:4681:6000:8832:4547:80B6:6C90 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry: On Misplaced Pages, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Misplaced Pages accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: It is unclear how does your comment relate to the topic. Could you please elaborate? 176.62.33.75 (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Monroe doctrine

When it comes to foreign relations issues, wikipedia unfortunately becomes a sock puppet of state department echoing the views of the usa administration. Pretending that USA controlled media are reliable sources leads to atrocities like this article. 5.55.122.178 (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

shut up donkey Carlos Jesús Vitorino García (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposition to rename the page to "2022 Peruvian Constitutional Crisis"

In line with the page "2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis" wich describe Martín Vizcarra dissolution of Congress, and is certainly not named "President Vizcarra self-coup", and in line with the Misplaced Pages aim to maintain a non-partisan description of events, and especially current highly controversial and conflictual events, this page should make instead reference to these events as a "constitutional crisis" while also acknowledging that several sources and political actors have described it as a "Self-coup attempt". I submit this proposition up to debate here, please make your contribution, without calling each other either "Marxist extremist" or "CIA puppet". I am myself, you would have guessed it, in favour of renaming it and reformulating the sentences in the article to better acknowledge that the Crisis extend beyond Castillo attempt to dissolve Congress and call for a Constituent Assembly. Snarcky1996 (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this absolutely should be modified, due to the bias that comes along with the word coup. - sincerely a wikipedia user 136.167.85.195 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I was like what the heck is a "Self-coup", are there non "self-coups", is there an "others"-coup? lol. Is that not just an invasion? or war then? Or political interference" as the term goes. So what would a "self"-coup be? Sounds like a way to introduce double speak. I support this as it at least makes more sense under this proposed naming. CaribDigita (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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) 20:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting how, despite the the fact that analogous article-naming arguments can be used, the article on the 2019 event in Bolivia somehow lacks "coup" in its title. Almost as if a recent event can be called a coup only if it does not align with the interests of the USA politics. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it makes more sense for Misplaced Pages to use similar language to describe similar events, rather than sensationalist media titles 136.167.85.136 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

First, the article for 2019 Bolivian political crisis does not have "coup" in its title because there has not been consensus to do so after multiple long and heated discussions on its talk page over the issue. Second, the two events are not similar at all. Article titles should reflect how most reliable sources refer to the event regardless of what anyone here personally feels about the event itself. StellarHalo (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of the 2019 Bolivian Crisis, I personally rather compare it to the dissolution of the Peruvian Congress by Vizcarra in 2019, named as a Wiki article: "2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis", despite Vizcarra's actions being broadly the same than those of Castillo here (albeit not exactly the same, it should also be precised). Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying that the dissolution by Vizcarra is the same as what Castillo wanted to do shows that you don't know anything about what happend and should just up before talking about what you don't know. What Vizcarra did was legal and following the constitution, what Castillo did was illegal and against the constitution. Yilku1 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

It was proposed in this section that 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt be renamed and moved to 2022 Peruvian political crisis. result: Moved. See below some difficulty in coming to agreement about this article title with compelling arguments and rebuttals all around; however, consensus has been achieved. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  08:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Move logs: source title · target title This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

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 or 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Comment 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

1. "La caída de Pedro Castillo: los caminos que llevaron al exmandatario a intentar dar golpe de Estado". La República (in Spanish). 2022-12-07. Retrieved 2022-12-08.
2. "Pedro Castillo: ¿Qué provocó la "caída" del presidente de Perú?". El Financiero (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-12-08.
3. "Perú: 20 golpes de Estado". La Verdad Noticias (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-12-07.
4. "Golpe a sí mismo: ¿Por qué Pedro Castillo intentó disolver el Congreso sin tener un plan?". El Comercio Perú (in Spanish). 2022-12-11. Retrieved 2022-12-12.
5. Quesada, Juan Diego (2022-12-09). "En el interior del golpe de Estado en Perú: "Presidente, ¿qué ha hecho?"". El País (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-12-12.
6. LR, Redacción (2022-12-07). "Pedro Castillo fue vacado tras anunciar disolución del Congreso". larepublica.pe (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-12-12.
7. GrupoRPP (2022-12-07). "Golpe de Estado: Pedro Castillo anuncia disolución del Congreso e instaura un "gobierno de excepción"". RPP (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-12-12.
8. "Golpe de Estado: Pedro Castillo anuncia disolución del Congreso y instaura un "gobierno de excepción"". EXITOSA NOTICIAS - NOTICIAS DEL PERU Y EL MUNDO (in Spanish). 2022-12-07. Retrieved 2022-12-12.

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, on Misplaced Pages 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 , let me know. Is there any other way I can be of help? P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.  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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Peru nor Misplaced Pages 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.  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.  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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Best to you, Aréat! P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  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 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: Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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

The request to rename this article to 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

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)

• Support: 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.

The introduction from the article itself compares Castillo's actions and Alberto's Fujimori's 1992 dissolution of Congress, titled in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Retrieved 2023-03-25.
• "Inside the coup in Peru: 'President, what have you done?'". EL PAÍS English. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment 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: --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:18, 23 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 " 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)

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 Misplaced Pages should not stray away from a NPOV and fall for labeling in its article titles.--WMrapids (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Peru articles
• Low-importance Peru articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Requested moves