text:
Talk:Coup d'état
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coup d'état article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
|Archives: 1, 2, 3
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
- 1 Talk Page
- 2 Discussions about definition, history and real content
- 2.1 Proposed edit to opening paragraph
- 2.2 Popular Use of the Term
- 2.3 The end of the English monarchy, 1688
- 2.4 Further References Links
- 2.5 Pronunciamiento: I need to edit this article
- 2.6 Types of coup d'état
- 2.7 History: Latest years
- 2.8 "Unconstitutional"
- 2.9 "Incumbent leaders"
- 2.10 "Update current leaders (Gadaffi, Libya)?"
- 2.11 "Area of the World"
- 2.12 plurals
- 3 Particular cases proposed as coups
- 3.1 IRAN - Coup of 12 June?
- 3.4 Ukraine 2010 coup.
- 3.5 Germany 1944
- 3.6 Australia
- 3.7 Chile
- 3.8 Coup vs revolution
- 3.9 Kyrgyzstan
- 3.10 Chad
- 3.11 Capital letter
- 3.12 Maldives
- 3.13 Edit request on 23 February 2012
- 3.14 Greece???
- 3.15 Pronunciation
- 3.16 Paraguay
- 3.17 coup d' etat of November 22, 1963
- 3.18 Museveni and Djotodia
- 3.19 Egypt - June/July 2013
- 3.20 PM of Fiji should be added to list of incumbent leaders
- 3.21 alternative name
- 3.22 Coup d'état and civil war
- 3.23 Erronous definition?
- 3.25 Ukraine 2014 - Oleksandr Turchynov
- 3.26 Eritrea's Afwerki
- 3.27 Pronunciation
- 3.28 Dilma Roussef
Talk Page[edit]
Maidan 2014 Ukraine need to put in the List, paid by U.S. 5 Billion with trained Groups
Talk Page organization[edit]
- I hope this does not disturb anybody, but following this talk page is almost impossible. If you don't mind I organized the discussion pages in sections, so anybody can follow what has been happening. PLEASE, if you intend to discuss for a particular case, especially current cases like Iran, Honduras, or whatever new country that has political problems, which in the end it is just a matter if the country is to be listed or not, and that's all.. then DO SO IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTION "Particular cases", and try not to mess with the content of the article itself. Finally, if you intend to list a given country, please before starting an edit war, check if it really is a coup, a revolution, a riot, or whatever... check the definitions, make sure it fits! Ok, I hope this helps in something... Alchaemist (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Semi protection[edit]
This page regularly gets vandalized. In fact it happens so often that every time you come back after a few days, either several people were added and reverted from the list, or the article was simply trashed. Whenever anybody doesn't likes a president, he simply lists him in the list of incumbent leaders. IMHO the article should be protected so anonymous IPs no longer can trash the article. For example, I have just reverted an edit which trashed part of the article, the guy simply deleted part of a section, and replaced it with trash in a wikipedia link. This went unnoticed for 5 days... What do you think? should the article be semiprotected? Regards! --Alchaemist (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Discussions about definition, history and real content[edit]
Proposed edit to opening paragraph[edit]
The second sentence is incomprehensible and thoroughly confusing: "A coup d'état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government's surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces." All kinds of style and grammatical issues with this one. Vague pronouns, too long, inconsistent terminology, etc.. I propose it get axed. I'd get rid of it myself but I can't. It's terrible.
Mdekruijf (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Popular Use of the Term[edit]
The term "coup" has been used, both recently and in the past, for situations that don't seem to fit our current definition ("the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder"). The situations in Honduras and Iran, the tendency of the turkish military to 're-secularize' the government, etc. non-military and non-government usage abounds as well - do a google search and you can find many examples. We need to define the term to CLEARLY include those situations which are "coups d'etat" and maybe add a section about popular use of the term.--RhoOphuichi (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- "the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder" is very critical definition to that word "coup". Leave it and do not change it just because of some recent events. It is never justified to extend edit war of another article to here just because a new definition is more favorable to another edit war.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- My apology. I should not say you a part of another edit war. That portion of my words are plainly wrong. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is clear said that use of military is not a defining feature of the word coup. There is no need of use of force, although it is often used.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The end of the English monarchy, 1688[edit]
'...the Glorious Revolution was the last coup d'état in England, effected to establish parliamentary democracy, whereby William of Orange deposed King James II, the last Roman Catholic English monarch, in 1688.
- Parliamentary "democracy"!!?? "Parliamentary sovereignty" surely?Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- In the so-called Glorious Revolution, an Allied (Dutch, Hanoverian, other German states, and French exiles) Army was landed in England by the Dutch Navy. The English Army, led by the quisling John Churchill, did not fight the invaders. The English navy had been unable to prevent the invasion because it was in port at crucial time because lack of intelligence and the wind being in the wrong direction when it did learn that the Dutch were about to invade. It was a foreign invasion.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Further References Links[edit]
Feel free to submit this further reading link to the main page.
Jeeptires (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Pronunciamiento: I need to edit this article[edit]
{{editprotected}} Why was this article fully protected? It seems that only IPs are causing trouble. Why not temporarily blocking anon users only? It seems totally exaggerated to completely protect this article.
My edit:
- The Pronunciamento (Pronouncement) is the Spanish and Hispano American analogue of coup d'état; golpe de estado (coup d'état) is the usual, Spanish phrase.
- The Pronunciamento ("pronouncement") is an euphemistic Spanish-language analogue of coup d'état; golpe de estado ("coup d'état") is the usual, Spanish phrase.
I hope this is not controversial. Thank you.
? CieloEstrellado 09:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've lowered the protection as you suggested. Please make the edit yourself. (However I suggest that "euphemistic" is a somewhat subjective word, and so maybe not suitable.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're probably right. I'd have to source that. ? CieloEstrellado 05:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Types of coup d'état[edit]
- This section in the article, certainly a very important one, seems to be messy, repeating itself and mixing the different criteria which can be used to classify a coup. Is anybody willing to help in cleaning it a bit, or giving it a better organization? Alchaemist (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
History: Latest years[edit]
Recently, the following paragraph was deleted by MarritzN on November 1st:
In the latest years, with the decline of coups d'état, another political phenomenon got more usual, mass protesters deposing unpopular leaders, such as in Iran (1979), Yugoslavia (2000), Argentina (2001), The Philippines in 1986 and 2001, Bolivia (2003), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004–2005), Ecuador (2005), and Bolivia (2005). Popular uprisings forced the incumbent leader's resignation, to ensure politico-economic stability, so that an unknown, uncontroversial interim leader can govern until formal elections are held; these changes of government are not coups d'état, because they are not military actions, and they involve big masses of protesters both things contradicting the definition, thus they are considered revolutions. In the Argentine case of 2001, the crisis was resolved constitutionally; like-wise, the Iranian Revolution of 1979, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, because it sprang from popular opposition to the Shah of Iran.
He stated: deleting a paragraph that, by its own admission, had nothing to do with coups d'etat.
While may seem true, I think that something should be said about these cases, because confusion as to WHAT A COUP IS is usually created by the press naming "coup" almost anything. Perhaps a smaller paragraph with less examples? Ideas here? Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Other ways to change a government[edit]
It does make sense to me to include a section that contrasts between coups d'etat and popular uprisings, especially in light of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the growing revolutionary movements elsewhere. So, I would say include that or something like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napzilla (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The word "unconstitutional" in the definition presents a problem when a country's constitutional tribunal (usually, the Supreme Court) is involved in the coup. Since most constitutions assign final word on constitutionality to some such tribunal, such a tribunal can always rule anything constitutional. If I were made Supreme Dictator of some democracy tomorrow by a supreme court ruling which also included the text "this ruling is ultra-mega-constitutional, no backsies a million", then by this definition that would not be a coup. I am of course thinking of such cases as Honduras 2009 (or, more debatably, USA 2000-2001) in which the Supreme Court was in fact involved.
On the other hand, we need some qualifier there, or every impeachment would be a coup. Something like "legally irregular" would work better IMO.
I'd like to know where the definition comes from. I'd put a {{fact}} tag on the word constitutional, but that would be ugly and disruptive on the page itself. So here: consider it done: "A coup d'état (English pronunciation: /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, (plural: coups d'état) or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional [citation needed] deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military." Homunq (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently I'm not the first person here to think along these lines: [1] Homunq (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Almost always is precisely the same constitution the one that defines the procedures, grounds and limits on which a Supreme Court can act over a President. As for the Supreme Court being involved, all previous cases I know of where the Supreme Court supported dictatorships (i.e. Argentina with almost all its coups), the constitution was actually abolished/suspended (BTW in an unconstitutional manner of course). The case of Honduras is really curious because there is actually an article of the constitution involved (when you read it is really funny), but it is not my intention to trigger another edit war in this "definitions" section. IMHO "legally irregular" by itself does not fit because in most cases they are simply illegal, and "legally irregular" is even more broad and confuse. Finally, yes, it is true, that there should be some reference material backing the definition, although I doubt that a single crystal clear definition, agreed all over the world has been ever written about this subject. BTW perhaps the UN has something? resolutions, articles even the website? just my 2 cents. --Alchaemist (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"Incumbent leaders"[edit]
Does it matter if a person hasn't been continuously in power since a previous coup? For example, Desi Bouterse was dictator of Suriname until 1988, and has recently been elected President in his own right. Farolif (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the section should best be used for current regimes that were established by a coup d'etat. That would exclude Bouterse's current tenure. OTOH, there are probably so few leaders in his situation, that it wouldn't expand the list unduly to include them. SamEV (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not agree that the section should best be used for current regimes that were established by a coup d'etat.
- If someone become leader through a coup, the 'democratic' election may be fixed. So it seems reasonable to keep them listed here.
- If the heading were changed to "incumbent regimes", it would have to include regimes that took power through a coup, and where the leader has changed through succession, so it would be a much longer list.
- --Toddy1 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not agree that the section should best be used for current regimes that were established by a coup d'etat.
- It is sometimes hard for outsiders to know whether an election is free and fair. For example, in Ukraine the current opposition (which was in power until a year ago) claims that any election that it loses was unfair - and as they have the ear of the foreign correspondents in Kiev, this rubbish is related as fact to the credulous west.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"Update current leaders (Gadaffi, Libya)?"[edit]
Is it too soon to strike Gadaffi as leader of Libya, and perhaps replace it with the new leaders?
- He's Dead so yeah we can say that the NTC pulled a coup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Kalleguld (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
"Area of the World"[edit]
An unidentified user added the "Area of the World" column to the "Current leaders" section in September of last year. I don't know what it adds to the article other than to show how many are in Africa, which can be countered by the fact that there are more countries in Africa than any other continent. I'm going to delete it. If someone adds it back in, please give an explanation. Farolif (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
coups d'état is mentioned, but coup d'états isn't. The former, correctly, describes multiple occurrences but the latter describes a single occurrence across multiple states. Also possible is coups d'états - multiple occurrences across multiple states. Eg Operation Condor#Antecedents 23:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Particular cases proposed as coups[edit]
Most edit wars in this article and discussions, are actually related to listing or not listing whoever, in the "Incumbent leaders..." list. If you are about to list someone, it would be polite if you first discuss it here, just create a new subsection, with the affected country in the title (I am assuming that as you are reading this, you are not a vandal). Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
IRAN - Coup of 12 June?[edit]
I invite all people who are talking about Iran's Coup to participate in developing Coup of 12 June article. and then put it in Coup d'état article. thanks. --Samic130 (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much. It seems that the Coup of 12 June article has been significantly improved. However, it merits to be improved more by all Iranians and the people who care about the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi horn (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Repeated vandalism on 13 June, and copy protection added[edit]
The following is copied from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Coup d'état
Temporary full protection dispute, Several editors are claiming that the recent re-election of the Iranian regime represent a coup d'etat. Although the fairness of the elections can be disputed, the re-election doesn't represent a coup d'etat. NorwegianBlue talk 20:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, that should have been semi-protection --NorwegianBlue talk 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fully protected Full protection was correct. Please feel free to contact me for unprotection when the dispute has settled or to post an unprotection request here. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that full protection is appropriate. The disruptive edits were from non-logged in users. The claim that an election represents a coup is absurd, and need not be discussed any more than people typing rude words in random places in articles. Indeed when I saw the protection template had been added, at first I assumed it was more vandalism. The right course of action is to block non-logged in editors from editing. Incidentally protecting a version that includes the vandalism seems pretty much like vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I do believe that the recent president election in Iran can be counted as a coup. The ex-president Mahmoud ahmadinejad simply cheated in poll turnout and using his power in government reassures his sit in the government. He ordered his runner reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi to be house arrested and he arrested all his campagn ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- 13 June as a coup is a controversial assertion without supporting evidence (at least at the moment) and events are unfolding rapidly. The burden of proof should be on those making the assertion. Shouldn't the protection be applied to a version without the assertion while the arguments are being made? Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
13June: Whether the assertion is true or not, it's irrelevant as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the Supreme Leader of Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
13June: I agree with those who've said that Wikipedia can't go with it as a coup until more information is known. At the very least, Ayatollah Khameni should be listed as the inciter of the coup, not Ahmadinejad. There simply is no evidence at the moment that Ahmadinejad was in any way involved, but Khameni has codified it. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
13June: The Iranian election was stolen and the whole process is nothing short of very well-planned coup. But I do agree that Khamanei himself should be listed as the inciter of the coup.
Iran: Election 13 June 2009[edit]
I've removed the mention of the 13 June Iranian election, per the above discussion; it should only be added back if we have strong sources for it, which those editors who feel it should be included can develop on the talk page. If consensus develops to a add well-sourced mention of it, then it can be added back.--ragesoss (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that what happend at 13 June 2009, after ahmadinejad defeat in iran presidental election was a coup de tat. Because they resisted remaining in power despite the fact that people voted to the other reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh1985im (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
What happened in Iran on June 13th was a coup de tat by all the measures. The votes were cooked. The free press was supressed right after the election, and the anti riot police were ready from the day before (they called it Eghtedar Maneuver) for the upcoming unrest. Also massive arrests of the political acticist from main reformist parties is reported from Iran, including Iran participation Party members and its director general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamylo (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
What happened on 13 June 2009 is absolutely a coup de tat. I've some reasons for it. Now in Iran, all of the Liberal Leaders (Such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi) are arrested (or home-arrested). Two days before the elections the SMS service came down and till now (when I'm writing this paragraph), it's not corrected yet. Also, Iran's security police (Called SEPAAH) is fighting with people. After Ahmadi Nejad elected, he wants to kill Hashemi Rafsanjani as "Big Robber", and Rafsanjani resigns from all of his political statements. I've many reasons from strong sources for it, but unfortunately all of them are in Persian. Mamylo (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- In addition to my last talk, I've found some English pages that said about June 13 2009, they're listed here: [1] [2] [3]
- These two pages, specially first, completely describe the events happening in Iran Mamylo (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- At this point, I would suggest that it's too early to definitely list this as a coup, simply because the mainstream media hasn't gone much further than reporting that some are calling it a coup. The best thing at this point would probably be to spend our efforts documenting the coup claims and the reports of election irregularities and fraud at Iranian presidential election, 2009. Once the dust settles, we can figure out what to do here.--ragesoss (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
we Iranian people believe closing all websites belong to reformists, shooting down sms service, iran melitary's statement (Sepah Pasdaran) before countig votes and putting many police forces in the streets before counting votes, also arresting many reformists leaders and suprme leader statement a day after the announcing fake votes are obvious signs of coup d'état. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Mohsen Sazegara, the Iranian political activist believes that this is a coup. [4] I agree with him. It has all signs of a coup. They are depositing the elected president, and backing the action by using military force and crushing the demonstrators. (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not know. The people responsible for the elections announced the result just like they do in Europe and America. The party that lost the elections then cried foul. Opposition supporters (including exiles) then start a campaign (such as the one on this site) to say the results were not the true results. None of these claims are reliable. They might be true, and they might not. I don't suppose that even the people making them know whether they are true or not. Claiming that the other side won by election fraud happens here too. After the 2000 US election campaign supporters of the defeated candidate did it (I saw a book about it in a bookshop in Dnepropetrovsk). Was the US election in 2000 a coup too? Seems absurd.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
These events have major differences with 2000 US election. There was no gun shots in 2000 and no newspaper blocked. In Iran, soon after elections all the community and news websites are blocked (e. g. Facebook, Twitter and ...) and mobile phones has no network connectivity. Streets of Tehran is a place for riots and gunshots (See this: [5]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamylo (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- All the events you describe could also be interpreted as putting down a attempted coup (or revolution depending on your view). There are two fundamental questions:
- was the election fraudulent (please provide reliable sources)
- does a fraudulent election constitute a coup
Ucanlookitup (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add some simple statistical notes about Iran election and I hope I can answer the first question mentioned above regarding the fraudulent election. I made an Excel file containing the time series of total votes that announced officially, you can find it here: http://kamibato.googlepages.com/Iran_Election2009.xls
There is data of total votes of each candidates, based on the official reports of the interior minister of Iran on 12th and 13th June. There are 11 official reports, that you can find them on all news agencies, but I mention one of them here: http://tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=51716 (this is in Persian, but if you want I can find them in English too). As you can see in the file, the correlation between the total numbers of votes for all candidates are 1. As you may know, this mean that these four time series are completely correlated to each other, but when you think that in Iran elections, first they count votes for small villages, then small towns and then larger towns, and big cities and finally Tehran, it would be clear that the portion of songsters of candidates in all over the country should not be completely the same. For example, all people believe that Ahmadinejad have more supporters in villages than cities and Mosavi have more supporters in cities, big cities and specially Tehran. Eventually, if someone see the reports of total numbers of votes, it is clear that this is not a counting of votes, this is a result making! I mean they did not count votes, but stupidly create some portions for candidates and announced them. One other interesting fact is that the votes of Rezaee in 10th announcement is less than in the 9th one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nate Silver commented on a similar analysis here. In any event, it would be original research, which can't be used on wikipedia ( Policy against original research). Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
What's going on in Iran today is nothing less than a coup d'etat, president ahmadinejad has not only cheated in the elections, but also he has organized arrest of around one hundred prominent political activists in the capital right after the election. Even the Newsweek is calling it a coup, I believe it definitely be considered as one: http://www.newsweek.com/id/201956 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Newsweek doesn't say it's a coup. They are quoting a Mousavi advisor Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Last coup hapenedafter Iran electon on 12 June 2009. Khameneye, Ahmadinejad and military forces change results of election unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If you don't call this a COUP D'ETAT, when police, security as well as the military miliatary forces are suppressing the people's vote, then I don't know what a COUP D'ETAT is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Coup D'etat is an illegal or violent change of government --- what happened in Iran is both illegal (Ahmadinejad made illegal acts by cheating in the election) and violent (military forces have attacked people and about 100 reformists are arrested). At any rate, this IS a coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
What kind of document do you need to consider what happened in june 12th a coup? If you need iranian officials to confirm it was a coup, it would never happen as long as they are in power. But if you want photos from military intervention, or documents on ignoring the votes, we can give you more than enough. Please answer if you have a slightest respect for freedom of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this, comparing 2000 election in USA with june 12th in Iran is so STUPID, becuase:
1- The day they gave results in 2000, streets of big cities were not of full of military forces with weapons. 2- they did not put down internet and wireless networks for 3 days all over the United states. 3- They did not attack Al Gore campaigns all over United States, setting some of them on fire. 4- Military did not beat, arrest or shoot the democrat protestor in United States cities
If you have not been convinced, I can explain more.
What makes this election different with previous ones in iran, is that cheatings where always local, in some cities. Cheating in interior ministry, to this extent, and with ignorance of peoples votes has never been done.
at least you can have have the coup on the website, so that pros and cons can discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
a coup d'état involves control, by an active, minority of military usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) military's possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country's key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure (from wiki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are waiting for an official announcement of coup by the leader of Iran to clarify that: "yes, last election was a coup and we applied the military and paramilitary forces to keep the power of Ahamdinejad and in spite that Mosawi was the winner of election we won't let him to be the president" you never will find something, it is clear. check this out: "Khamenei's Coup" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401758.html . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
check this out, everybody inside iran knows it was a coup: [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC) p.s. some reformist parties such as the "mosharekat" party has also announced this to be a coup and later on they were arrested for saying such a thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The New York Times calls it as "a silent coup d'état." [7] (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there are lots of references and it is going to be appear in history books soon and also I think there are enough to prove the coup in Iranian election. I am not familiar with Wikipedia rules but please somebody add this coup to the list. Even if I am starting to understand all Wikipedia rules and I will add it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This kind of resistance against including Iran presidential election as a coup d'etat seems so strange, as this has been called "coup d'etat" by many sources most of them reliable and independant. I would like to put some of this sources for the attention of those who strangly resist. These include several analysis. I hope these references help them to believe the coup d'etat in Iran.
1.http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6193 2.http://globalcomment.com/2009/iran-election-ahmadinejads-win-is-a-coup-detat/ 3.http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/06/16/ahmadinejads_coup_detat/ 4.http://www.newsweek.com/id/201956 5.http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-23-voa26.cfm 6.http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/15/iran-elections-khamenei-mousavi-ahmadinejad-opinions-contributors-milani.html 7.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401758.html?hpid=topnews 8.http://tehranbroadcast.com/Do-not-get-people-trapped-in-the.html 9.http://tehranbroadcast.com/Do-not-get-people-trapped-in-the.html 10.http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12003:the-archaeology-of-irans-regime&catid=73:politics&Itemid=199 11.http://www.minnpost.com/globalpost/2009/07/01/9957/iran_looking_to_the_past_to_understand_the_present 12.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/middleeast/03iran.html?scp=4&sq=coup%20iran&st=cse 13.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/world/main5127282.shtml 14.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/a-coup-manual-what-we-sho_b_216461.html 15.http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Iran/idUSLT67976020090701 16.http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html 17.http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html 18.http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/123070238/irans-political-coup 19.http://www.mideastanalysis.com/1/post/2009/06/what-happened-in-iran.html 20.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17pletka.html
Please see the Coup of 12 June article for more complementary evidences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi horn (talk • contribs) 04:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Iran: Definition of coup[edit]
As the one who requested protection, I'd like to comment a little further about why:
The initial sentence of the article reads: "A coup d'état ... is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military." (my emphasis) . If I have understood what's going on in Iran correctly, there has been no change of government. So if Iran is to be listed, the very definition of coup d'etat needs to be changed. --NorwegianBlue talk 18:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The majority of iraninan voters wanted a change, and they voted for the reform candidates, however, ahmadinejad did not respect vote of people, and stayed in power by a paramilitary coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is easy to understand the passion you feel for what's going on in Iran. I'm sure you'll find that many people share your feelings and want very much to support the struggle of the Iranian people. The opinions expressed here, though, are only about the encyclopedia article on Coups. I believe that people are editing the Iran page to reflect the ongoing events. Perhaps that would be a better place to add some of this content? Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As you may know and you can find in many resources, before the election supporters of other candidates started to encourage people to vote, because all of them wanted to change the current president. You know, there is a special kind of political structure in Iran. There is a supreme leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) that is a religious and political position and after that is the president. The supreme leader is not allowed to verify and confirm the election result before the Guardian Council that is in charge of survey and verify the results of elections. But one of the biggest problems in the last election is that the supreme leader announced the results and congratulated to Ahmadinejad even before the latest report of votes from the interior minister. That means that, he started to change the structure of political power in Iran without importance of election. I believe that after this election, the structure of political power in Iran changed from "Islamic Republic" to something like "Islamic Regimen". I mean, what that should determined the president was the election, in spite of lots of reasons for fraud in the election, the leader determined the president and so changed the government of Iran. Government of Iran changed after the last election because the elected president is not the announced one and they are using military and paramilitary forces to suppress the people who believe that the election was the trap. You should consider that the leader is not the head of cabinet. The role of leader in cabinet is a religious role and thus he should not introduce the president, he just verify the latest results after the latest report of Guardian Council. But this time he introduced the president while the counting of votes was not complete and he and ahmadinejad started to arrest all protesters using all military and paramilitary forces that they have. The problem is that they are very pawky and pretend that nothing is changed in Iran but the leader and the president changed the government silently and don't let protesters to talk, all of them are in prison now and many of people has been killed. If the government was as the same as the last week, the protesters would have done their complaints but now they are in the prison, many of people have been killed, internet is filtered, sms and mobiles connection are shut down, and today they have filtered email and chat services. and you can find out that many political reporters called it as a coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KamWiki (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
See this, this girl is died by a shot from Sepah, if this is not a Coup, so what's this ? [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamylo (talk • contribs) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Until it is proven, or at least widely confirmed, that the vote was fixed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, calling the election a coup is irresponsible. And I don't mean "I voted for someone else and he didn't win, so it was rigged". I mean an actual recount, or some action taken to PROVE one way or another. Protesting and violence prove nothing except that the people involved feel strongly. It doesn't mean they're correct. There are a lot of heated opinions about this. Don't let it become a problem. --King ? Talk 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.newsweek.com/id/201956
- ^ http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2009/06/irans-political-coup.html
- ^ http://www.djavadi.net/2009/06/13/an-electoral-coup-in-iran/
- ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiMw-Oyr8
- ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdjKfbMTn1A
- ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4b3jk7kzIs&feature=channel_pa
- ^ PLETKA, DANIELLE (June 16, 2009). "Iran's Hidden Revolution".
- ^ http://www.zshare.net/download/6164046183526d07/
Honduran case is not applicable[edit]
The recent Honduran events are not a Coup D'état. The Supreme Court ordered the military to destitute former President Manuel Zelaya for violating the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Congress as indicated in Honduran law. Once legally destituted, the Congress named Roberto Micheletti as President, following the established law. President Micheletti, therefore, is the legal President of Honduras, while former President Zelaya is violating the law, once again, by pretending he is.
- I'm removing Micheletti from the list. Agreed. He is merely the acting president until new elections can be held, later this year. Zelaya was arrested and deported on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court. This is hardly an example of a military coup. Mingusboodle (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, "I'm removing Micheletti from the list" is dated 16 July 2009. It is now 5 October 2009 and he is still on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Honduras Not Coup Says US[edit]
Washington Post [2]
Clinton made the decision even though she did not determine that Zelaya's ouster met the U.S. legal definition of a military coup d'etat. Such a finding would have forced the administration to cut off assistance and had been urged by some leading lawmakers, including Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee....Clinton did not make that finding because Zelaya's ouster involved "the participation of both the legislative and judicial branches of government as well as the military," Kelly said.
Honduras must be removed from the list. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why has this recommendation been ignored? If the Supreme Court of Honduras enabled the removal for illegal (high crime) activity by Zelaya, who in some other country is to challenge that? Honduras must be removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Honduras Not Coup Says US[edit]
Washington Post [3]
Clinton made the decision even though she did not determine that Zelaya's ouster met the U.S. legal definition of a military coup d'etat. Such a finding would have forced the administration to cut off assistance and had been urged by some leading lawmakers, including Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee....Clinton did not make that finding because Zelaya's ouster involved "the participation of both the legislative and judicial branches of government as well as the military," Kelly said.
Honduras must be removed from the list. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
"We are unable to locate the page you requested." In fact, some people might say that the qualification added to Micheletti in a note is OR. There is no reference for it. A good reference would be an article in a non-Honduran newspaper analysing the Honduran constitution. If no such reference can be given, the word "claimed" should be added. Your text (hopefully a quote from the disappeared article) mentions "US legal defenition of..." And there is the problem. This is not the US legal Wikipedia. If all major English-speaking newspapers around the world call it a coup, it is a coup. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Permanent protection????[edit]
This article is a mess as it stands. I understand if there was edit-warring, but personally I'd rather see hair-trigger bans on editors (starting with short bans, but escalating if offenses repeat) than a frozen article. There is currently no single clear definition on the page itself, and that's not helping the debate in relation to Honduras right now. Homunq (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- The version is I read a few weeks before is really excellent. What happens?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The article is not a mess. It is written to provide an encyclopaedia entry on coup d'etat. I do not know whether it helps a debate about Honduras. I suspect that people with a POV to push, find the article unhelpful because it is clear and factual.
Homunq said: There is currently no single clear definition on the page itself. But there is:
- A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.
Remember that Wikipedia is not a place of original thought; it is merely a place for recording what is thought - the definition comes from Edward Luttwak. --Toddy1 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- My point was that I have found that articles under permanent protection tend to be lower-quality than those open to edits. Since the permanent protection has been revoked, the article has improved. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it also be included in the "incumbents received power after coup"? 2008 Mauritanian coup d'état, Mauritanian presidential election, 2009. Alinor (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- After reviewing the detailed Wikipedia articles about this coup, I added it to the list with a note explaining the elections that took place this year. Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ukraine 2010 coup.[edit]
Today a Coup d'etat happened in the Ukraine. Read here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/17/ukraine.election.results/index.html?iref=allsearch
Please put that back. СЛУЖБА (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- No it didn't. A court has put the result "on hold" pending appeal. That is not a "coup" under any definition of the term. – ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Germany 1944[edit]
The following text is in this article: "The 20 July 1944 plot by parts of the German military to overthrow the elected National Socialist government of Adolf Hitler in Germany is an example of a failed veto coup d'état."
On what planet was Hitler elected? The persecution and threats involved make the idea that 1933 was an election ludicrus. And does one guy setting of a bomb qualify as a coup? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is a historical fact that the German Government of 1933-45 was democratically elected. Hitler was appointed Chancellor on 30 January 1933, after the German federal election, November 1932. On that day, Chancellor Hitler had just as good a claim to be democratically elected as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1940, or British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2007. Unlike Churchill and Brown, Hitler fought an election campaign soon after becoming chancellor: the German federal election, March 1933.
- In a democracy, one way of being elected is to offer the people what they really want. As a whole, the German people of 1919-1939 had a deep racist hatred of Jews and wanted a war of revenge after their defeat in 1918. Hitler offered to take action on both of these for them, and they voted for it. And when the Germans found themselves being bombed by the RAF in World War II, they had only themselves to blame.
- The 20 July plot was not a lone person setting off a bomb - a full coup d'etat was planned; only some parts of the plan were implemented - the big problem was that some of the leaders hesitated, wanting to know that Hitler was dead before they did anything.
- The 20 July plot is a good example of two things:
- A failed coup
- A coup against an evil democratically elected government
--Toddy1 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I staunchly disagree with Toddy1 that Hitler and the Nazis were duly and rightfully "elected" for the purposes of this discussion. Accordingly, the 20 July Plot should not be listed as an example of a veto coup d'etat.
- While Hitler was indeed initially elected in early 1933, he and the National Socialists almost immediately eliminated all political opposition in Germany. By the end of July of 1933, only the National Socialist Party remained, and outspoken opposition leaders were arrested, or worse, assassinated. I do not know if there were elections after that point - perhaps so - but it hardly mattered, as there was no real "choice" in Germany after that point except the Nazi party. Thus, I flatly REJECT the notion that the 20 July Plot should be classified as a veto coup d'etat, and am deleting that reference on the main page to reflect that conviction. The 20 July Plot was indeed larger than Col. Stauffenberg, but the method was not to subvert the will of the people by deposing "duly elected leaders."
- After careful reading and consideration, I believe the 20 July Plot would most accurately be described as a guardian coup d'etat, primarily because there was no change in the fundamental structure of the government - only the personnel were to have changed, and the purpose for the plot was to overthrow what the plotters perceived (rightly) to be an evil and corrupt regime. Further, the 20 July Plot was not led by a "Revolutionary" army - in fact it was led by factions within the existing army, again, a feature of a guardian coup d'etat.
- One last thing - I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and so if I'm proceeding the wrong way, please let me know. My understanding is that anyone can edit entries, but that for them to survive an edit war, the changes must be defended and backed up. I think I've done that here, but am open to further discussion on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Were your comments an April Fools' Day joke? Or do you really believe that the plotters intended to retain the SS, the Gestapo, the system of Gauleiters & Kreisleiters, etc.? These had become by 1944 part of the fundamental structure of the government in Germany. If you do, you are mistaken.
- Hitler was (sort of) elected in 1933. In 1944, he was not an democratically elected government. And, destitution of a democratic government was not a sufficient condition for a coup can be considered a "veto coup" (after all, most guardian coups had been also against democratic governments--18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hitler came to power in 1933 by the normal processes of forming a coalition government, where one party does not have an overall majority in parliament. This is common in European democracies.
- That the German government of 1933-45 suspended regular free general elections is not unique. They justified this by claiming that there was a national emergency. The British should have had an election in 1940, but this was also suspended because of a national emergency.
- The democratically elected German government of 1933-45 was an evil government that manipulated the system to achieve their ends. But many of the things they did were not unique, which was why they got away with it.
"A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder" Unelected union groups seized political control of Members of Parliament, a critical segment of state machinery if ever there was one, and effectively forced Rudd to resign, and gave Julia the power to reshuffle the Cabinet as she saw fit. The old government was destroyed and a new one was installed due to the work of unelected people.
That's a coup d'etat if ever there was one. Stop reverting additions of JG to the list. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by the qualifier "in Marxist historiography" regarding the Chilean coup. I was under the impression that there was a fairly broad consensus that Pinochet overthrew Allende in a coup among both non-Marxist and mainstream historians. Noam Chomsky, William Blum, and Naomi Klein have all referred to it as a coup, and none of them are Marxists (at least, I know for a fact that Chomsky isn't, and I'm reasonably certain on the other two). While I've encountered examples of people claiming that the coup was in defense of democracy, I don't recall encountering an instance of somebody claiming that it wasn't a coup. I just thought I'd ask for clarification rather than changing it, as there seems to have been some heated discussions regarding what does and does not qualify as a coup.
Coup vs revolution[edit]
The article could make clearer the relation between a coup and a revolution.
Unlike a revolution, which is usually achieved by large numbers of people working for basic social, economic, and political change, a coup is a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel. [4]
pgr94 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Kyrgyzstan's present leader also came to power with a coup in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Everything I've read is that Idriss Deby assumed power in Chad from a coup in 1990. Why isn't he included on the list of current leaders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farolif (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well you added Deby, but you did not add any citations to back it up. According to Deby's Wikipedia biography: "He moved to Sudan and formed the Patriotic Salvation Movement, an insurgent group, supported by Libya and Sudan, which started operations against Habré in October 1989. He unleashed a decisive attack on 10 November 1990, and on 2 December Déby's troops marched unopposed into the capital, N'Djaména." That is not a coup; so I am reverting it.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Any number of sources refer to this as a coup. http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/talktojazeera/2010/05/2010559215680450.html
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1068700.stm
- http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/key-issues/research-resources/conflict-histories/chad.aspx
- http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=58775
- http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/2323.cfm
- Plus, Wikipedia's list of coups d'etat includes the 1990 event. Farolif (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, so we're agreed that Deby belongs on the list. I have trouble understanding, though, why this case needs citations on the page, but none of the other leaders do. Is it simply because Deby's Wiki bio doesn't spell out the word 'coup' in its description of it? Farolif (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be better if they all had citations.
I have difficulty understanding how what happened can be called a coup d'etat - but since you have a whole sheaf of good citations saying that it was... Wikipedia:Citing sources says "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Capital letter[edit]
Shouldn't it be a capital letter E in Coup d'État? Like the titel of the book mentioned in the article. Adville (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- The article is named according to Wikipedia policy.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- See /Archive 3#Requested move for previous discussion. --Kusunose 01:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Any concensus on the status of the Maldives? The country just had a regime change following a police & army mutiny. Farolif (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. Are there any reliable sources calling it a coup? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's a 50/50 call at this point. Most sources I found (BBC, Al Jazeera) are using the word in quotation marks to show they are repeating the claims of ousted President Nasheed & his supporters that it was indeed a coup, while the opposition is denying it as such. According to this article released since I posted this topic, the question of whether the mainstream media will refer to it as a 'coup' might be answered shortly.Farolif (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- One side refers to it as a coup ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17353230 ) and one as a constitutional change. My opinion is that it should be listed on a list, but with a special note about it. HeadlessMaster (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- No independent, third-party source calls it a coup. BBC is not calling it anything. Only the brother calls it a coup.
His brother Naushad Waheed has accused the former vice president of seizing power in "an illegal coup" in February.
- No independent, third-party source calls it a coup. BBC is not calling it anything. Only the brother calls it a coup.
Edit request on 23 February 2012[edit]
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
|answered= or
|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
|- |President || Mohammed Waheed Hassan* || 07 February 2012 || Maldives || Asia 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not done See the section above; waiting on consistency in reliable sources. Dru of Id (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Its not yet clear whether the change of Government in Maldives is a coup. Commonwealth also failed to call it a coup and requested investigation into the transfer of power. No one has declared it as a coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone just added current Greek government as the result of a Coup in the table "Current leaders who assumed power via coups d'état". Quite an exageration, isn't it? Besides the lack of source.--G Furtado (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Where on earth did that english pronunciation come from? Nobody uses that.. they pronounce it roughly the same as French but without an accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Paraguay's recent ousting of its President is probably a coup. Most of Latin America condemned it and following that Paraguay was suspended from Mercosur. The President who got ousted Fernando Lugo was only given two hours for legal defense! This alone should almost categorize it has a coup.
coup d' etat of November 22, 1963[edit]
This article is remis in omitting the US coup of 1963. This was clearly a coup, but of course no mainstream news agency will characterize it that way because the mainstream media is also part of the machine which supports the policies by which those who executed this coup espouse. So there will be no acknowledgement by any mainstream news source calling it a coup, but the merits on which the assassination event occured clearly define it as a coup by the vast majority of those who have researched the subject enough to be considered authorities.Concorderider (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)concorderider
Museveni and Djotodia[edit]
Yoweri Museveni and Michel Djotodia did not assumed power via coups d'état but by winning a civil war - a different thing, I think.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- As the article indicates, a coup d'etat is generally - but not always - led by a faction of the state leadership. The 'breakthrough coup' category specifies a coup led by "a revolutionary army", which is the case for Museveni and Djotodia. Additionally, numerous news sources have referred to Djotodia's ascending to power as the result of a 'coup'; a few others (one such example here) have also used the term in appropriate reports about Museveni. Farolif (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Egypt - June/July 2013[edit]
The events of 30 June - 3 July in Egypt have not been internationally or legally accepted as a coup d'état, but rather a (second) revolution owing to the major changes it has caused to the economic, societal and political constructs of the nation, most particularly being the dissolving of the parliamentary structure and the revoking and replacement of the constitution - 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- What happened, by definition, was a coup. Yes, it may have been popularly supported. It was still a coup. Samuel Peoples (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, at this point, the Wikipedia article regarding the topic refers to it as a 'coup d'état'. So if only for the sake of consistency in the encyclopedia, the list of current leaders having assumed power via a coup should include Adly Mansour. Samuel Peoples (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The title of the article 2013 Egyptian coup d'état is under dispute. While I also lean towards calling it a 'coup d'état', the matter is not clear at this point. So, I think Adly Mansour should not be listed yet. We need to wait for this to take its course and allow a consensus among sources to emerge. I see no urgency in deciding this matter now, especially without consistent sources.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, the encyclopedia refers to it as a coup, citing countless sources. Until that changes, I think we should be consistent throughout the encyclopedia in referring to it as such. Samuel Peoples (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The title of the article 2013 Egyptian coup d'état is under dispute. While I also lean towards calling it a 'coup d'état', the matter is not clear at this point. So, I think Adly Mansour should not be listed yet. We need to wait for this to take its course and allow a consensus among sources to emerge. I see no urgency in deciding this matter now, especially without consistent sources.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For anyone wishing to join the debate on this, see Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état. Samuel Peoples (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
PM of Fiji should be added to list of incumbent leaders[edit]
I think that the PM of Fiji should be added to the list of incumbent leaders put in power via a military overthrow. December 6 2006. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Bainimarama is already listed and has been so for some time now. Farolif (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
alternative name[edit]
I, a non-native speaker, found in the online version of this book "Hayyim, Sulayman. New Persian-English dictionary, complete and modern, designed to give the English meanings of over 50,000 words, terms, idioms, and proverbs in the Persian language, as well as the transliteration of the words in English characters. Together with a sufficient treatment of all the grammatical features of the Persian Language. [Teheran, Librairie-imprimerie Béroukhim] 1934-1936." the (perhaps dated, archaic or simply rare) term statestroke (see URL). Is this term still used or has it been completely replaced by coup d'état nowadays? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Stroke of state" already redirects to this article. Farolif (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Coup d'état and civil war[edit]
Is it true that "When the coup neither fails completely nor succeeds, a civil war is a likely consequence." Could you please give more information or cite some sources about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLari (talk • contribs) 07:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Erronous definition?[edit]
Where does the definition come from? "A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; plural: coups d'état), also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden deposition of a government,[1][2][3][4] usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military." The references are not at the end, and the text before the cites is obviously wrong since it excludes all the self-coups. A better definition would be "…the sudden break of constitutional order, usually by a small group…" The key feature is the break of the constitutional order (which can be by a juridical decision as well, see the literature), and not the change of head of state or similar. Case in point: In 1772 the king Gustav III of Sweden made a coup d'état, breaking the constitutional order (writing a new constitution), but not changing the head of state. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
UKRAINE 2014[edit]
According to definition on this page there was A Coup D'etat in Ukraine. The Country's leader was forced to leave the Country (or he would get killed), then in his absence he was voted out of power. Explain how this is not so. STOP vandalising the table unless you have something to add to the discussion. Yopie just keep removing edit with no explanation.--Jimmydreads (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- No. It doesn't work that way. You have to supply a reliable source which calls this a coup. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Also please do not accuse other editors of vandalism. This is not proper behaviour and is against the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I meant no harm mentioning a name, I was frustrated by lack of messages during reversion. I forgot that edit history can be seen. But please if you wish to continue reprimanding me, do so on my Talk Page Jimmydreads (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, definitely not. I did not wish to reprimand you, just to advise you regarding how things should be done on wiki. Now that I see you got the points I referred to, there is no need for any further advice. It's all good. Thank you for taking these comments onboard. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yanukovych was removed from office via parliamentary vote as per Ukraine's constitutional rules, therefore it does not qualify as a 'coup'. (Furthermore, he was still in Ukraine when he was ousted.) Farolif (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence to support these claims Jimmydreads (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Please provide temporary protection for this article until the issue can be resolved. Jimmydreads (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- The only protection needed is from your edit-warring. Please do no continue this way because you may end up losing your editing ability for a short period of time due to edit-warring. Hopefully you will not continue. Let's just hope for the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- The only reason for edit-waring was for lack of discussion. I have ceased. Sorry that it happened. Jimmydreads (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Ukraine 2014 - Oleksandr Turchynov[edit]
I believe he should have been included as one of the recent leader who seized power as a result of coup d'etat? I mean Yanukovich is the rightfully elected president president, overthrown by a putsch backed by the USA. Norum 11:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reliable neutral source for this? And understand that Russia is in war with Ukraine, ocupiing her territory, and Russian state news are not neutral source.--Yopie (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- it's hardly an occupation since Ukraine has an agreement with Russia to let its Black Sea Fleet use the Crimea until 2042. Norum 11:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Eritrea's Afwerki[edit]
I propose to add Isaias Afwerki to the list of "Current leaders who assumed power via coups d'état. His ascendency to power was a result of the Eritrean War for Independence, and qualifies as a "coup" in the sense that his revolutionary group (Eritrean People's Liberation Front) overthrew the Ethiopian government within the territory that would become independent Eritrea. Farolif (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Civil wars and coups are different things--184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The lead implies that the French pronunciation is also the English one. Is there seriously anyone who would pronounce coups as "ku"? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Dilma Roussef[edit]
I have a serious problem with adding Dilma Roussef to the list of leaders that were deposed by a coup. She was suspended from her position pending an impeachment trial by the Brazilian legislature via the constitutional processes. This does not fit the definition of a coup. She has called the whole process a coup, but that is political spin and shouldn't be taken at face value. Am I wrong?
Sdbarry1 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are right. The situation is this: as a result of the dictatorships of the past, there is a complete social consensus in Latin America that coups are wrong, that they must be completely off the table of political options. But then, populist leaders like Dilma, Chávez, Maduro, Kirchner and Morales took advantage of it, and dismiss any legal control or oversight over them (including impeachments when misconduct is too grave), and even press criticism and social discontent, with conspiracy theories about covert coups against them. They even have a name for it, "golpe blando" ("soft coup"). This is not the first time this happens: the Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo was impeached and removed from office in 2008, and the populists called it a coup as well. But a conspiracy theory is still just a conspiracy theory, even if a national leader believes in it. 2 + 2 = 4, even if Big Brother says that 2 + 2 = 5. Cambalachero (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's fair to wait for the ruling of coup scholars before the wiki page labels it a coup. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


text:
There has been somewhat of a debate among a group of teachers that I know. Is it a good idea to give timed addition and subtraction facts tests to second graders? I did it for a while when my team first wanted to do it, but I found that some kids got too upset because they weren't able to work that fast and remained on the same level for a long time, and others zipped through it because it wasn't much of a challenge for them. After two years, I decided not to give these timed tests anymore. Even though it was only for three minutes, I didn't think it was worth the time.
My feeling is that, while it is important to know math facts in order to be able to work faster, it's much more worthwhile to know how to solve problems involving math concepts. Memorization does have its place, but it doesn't mean that kids are able to demonstrate what to do with the numbers. A case in point: four years ago I had a student whose parents kept telling me I wasn't challenging their son in math because he knew all of his multiplication tables. They felt that this was an indication that he was ready for more difficult material. The problem was that when given a word problem to solve, the boy had no idea where to begin. He could not apply his knowledge of the facts to solve real-world problems.
I prefer to spend a part of my daily math class teaching the children problem-solving strategies, so I have two daily problems to solve: one is challenging and the other is on grade level. I don't necessarily assign one to any particular child, but most know which one they are able to solve. Then we spend some time having the students demonstrate ways to solve the problem.
Does anyone have an opinion about the importance of memorizing facts as opposed to learning how to problem-solve?
I was over at the school today doing some more work getting my classroom set up for the new batch of second graders who will be here in two weeks. My principal stopped me to talk about some changes that will occur in my grade this year. She wanted to know my feelings about the new teacher who will join us. I told her that we would work with her and try to help out as much as possible, and if she does her part, things will work out just fine. My principal thanked me for always having a good attitude in most situations. (Apparently someone else on the grade level has been complaining to her about the change.)
Now, I know that the change for the new teacher is going to be tough. This particular teacher was in charge of computer lab for the past four years, and due to budget concerns in the district, her position was taken out, so she was re-assigned to our grade to replace a retiring teacher. She worked with us a few years back, and had a very rough time in the classroom. She was very needy, unable to plan effectively, and disorganized. It was rumored that was the reason for her reassignment to the lab-no grades, no homeroom, no tests, no planning.
Knowing what I know about the difficulty of the situation for everyone involved, I could have easily expressed doubts and led the principal to think that we can't handle it. Instead, I took the positive approach and assured her that we'll all do our part to help the new one as much as we can. Sometimes it's just what you have to do to make the situation bearable.
Does this mean I don't gripe like everybody else? NO! I'm not a saint! I know that nothing is perfect 100% of the time, and I do get frustrated over some of the pressures put on us and the students to perform. But, I have seen so often those who are constantly complaining bring out the worst in their colleagues. With that said, my goal this year is to avoid those who bring me down with all of the whining and associate with people who can find the good in things most of the time.
So, who's with me on this?
At the beginning of the school year, my students receive an agenda book in which they write their daily assignments. I write a letter to parents that explains why their chilren have the agenda and I tell parents that they need to initial the book each night. This is to ensure that they have seen their child's assignments. Another important reason I want them to check the agendas is because I often write notes to parents in that book, and I want to make sure the parents see the notes. (The notes give a short synopsis of their child's activities in school that week, and they are mostly positive.)
Throughout the year, I remind parents to initial the agenda books during face-to-face conversations, on my class website, and telephone calls. It never fails, though, that there are parents who seemingly never look at the book. Since I teach second graders, I don't want to penalize the children for something their parents are responsible for doing. Other teachers I've talked to keep the kids in at recess or give some other type of punishment. I just think this is wrong.
With the approach of the new school year, I will again ask that parents check the daily assignment book and initial it each day. Does anyone have any ideas about what I can do to get the parents to honor this one simple request from me? I don't know how the rest of you out there feel, but I don't have enough time to call every parent weekly, mainly because most parents will keep me on the phone way longer than I'd like. I want the parents to know that they can keep up with what their children are doing in my class if they'd just check the book. Any ideas?
Since I'm on the subject of class pets, I'm reminded of a group of kids I had 7 years ago. Although all of the kids were sweet, there were some definite behavior issues, primarily with the boys. They were a group of extremely immature boys who spent a lot of time off task. However, I had a very mature group of girls who were really serious about school and learning. You can probably imagine the climate of that class!
That particular year we had two cockatiels as pets, but I never let them out of the cage because I didn't want to hype up some of the little guys. One afternoon, all of the boys were called to an assembly for Cub Scouts recruitment. While they were gone, the girls begged me to let the birds fly around the room a little. I got them all in a large circle on the floor and opened the cage. Those birds flew all over that room, and I even got them to perch on some of the girls' outstretched arms, much to the girls' delight! After a few minutes, I caught the birds and put them back in the cage. I didn't want the boys to know that they had missed out, so we all agreed not to tell them about letting the birds out. (Remember, these were mature girls, and they kept that secret!)
During the year, once in a while the girls would remind me (in private conversations, of course) how much fun it was the day the boys left the room for those few minutes. Several of the girls continued to visit me as they moved on to the upper grades, and they still talked about it, "Remember the time the boys left and it was just us girls and you let the birds out?"
It's funny the things that our students recall about their time in our classrooms! You never know which events will stand out in their minds as being important!
A few years ago, I bought my class two hermit crabs as our class pets. The kids named them Grandpa, because he was big, and Ketchup, because he had claws the color of ketchup. The kids really loved those crabs, and took turns caring for them.
One day when the class went to Music, I was looking in the cage and Ketchup was gone. I dug around in the rocks and sand, looked under the little house, and looked inside the tube they often climbed in. He was not in there.
When the kids came back in , we had a class meeting to talk about where Ketchup might be. Nobody could explain it. I told them that maybe somehow Ketchup had gotten out of the cage. Everybody talked about how we could keep our eyes open just in case he happened to crawl out of his presumed hiding place. We didn't find him that day.
The next morning Ketchup was still missing. We went along with our daily routine, and during recess, I happened to have study hall in my classroom. We used study hall as a time for kids who needed to make up assignments could come for a few minutes during recess. On this particular day, there were five or six students from other second grade classes in my room working. While they worked, I went back to the cage and poked around to see if I could have possibly missed Ketchup. Grandpa was in there, but that was it.
As I poked around in the cage, a little girl asked me what I was doing. I told her that I was trying to find our hermit crab. She asked me if it had red claws and I told her it did. She then told me that Chelsie in my class had a hermit crab with red claws at the bus stop the afternoon before.
That afternoon I took Chelsie aside and asked her about the hermit crab, and she denied ever having one. I called her mom later that afternoon, and she said that Chelsie had found a crab at the bus stop the previous day, put it in her backpack, and they put it in a bowl with some water when she got home. She really believed that she found a hermit crab at the bus stop! I explained that I was pretty sure that it was our class pet and asked that she return it the next day.
Ketchup came back to school the next day with Chelsie. The kids were so happy to have him back, but some of them could not understand how she could take it in the first place. They were really mad at her. We ended having a class meeting to get it all out in the open, and I guess she realized that she was wrong, and Chelsie apologized. Everything went back to normal after that.
Grandpa and Ketchup went on to be our class pet for another couple of years. After that, I got a rabbit. I don't think he'll be as easy to sneak into a back pack!
I got antsy today and went over to my school to take a look at my classroom. Yep, it was still there! I set my goal for the day: untangle all of the computer wires and cords that were not supposed to be unplugged. Well, they did get unplugged and were a mess to straighten out. It felt good to get it out of the way, though.
I've decided to set a goal each day until school starts so that it won't be so overwhelming once school officially starts back in 3 weeks. I don't know what goes on at other schools, but our district gives us just 1 1/2 days to get our rooms together. The rest of the week is spent in inservice. It's really hard to pay attention when we all need to be doing other things to get ready for the kids.
Anyway, other goals for the next few days: clean shelves and put books on them, unpack supplies that I ordered and organize my supply closet, set up furniture differently from last year, arrange centers, organize my desk, declutter, take care of bulletin boards, and get my rugs cleaned. That about does it until I can get my hands on a class list. When I do there will be other details to take care of.
Oh yeah, lesson plans. Once the room is done, I can finally settle down to work on those.
I wonder if others outside the profession realize how much needs to be done in order to be ready for a new batch of kids every year?
In the past several years I've had the opportunity to work with many student teachers. It's always a lot of fun watching them grow during their short time with me, and I get a lot of personal satisfaction in knowing that I may have helped them achieve their goals.
One reason I work with these students is because of my own wretched student teaching experience! My supervising teacher gave me her plan book and told me that under no circumstances would I be allowed to do anything other than what she had put in her plan book. She said she wanted the class to be exactly where she wanted them to be after I left, and that there was no time for me to add my own ideas. Although I loved the kids and made my A, I left at the end of the term feeling very unprepared and incompetent. I lost all confidence in my abilities. I didn't teach for 8 years, and it wasn't until I had my own kids that I realized that I could teach and do a good job at that!
Because of that time, I love working with student teachers. I know what NOT to do, thanks to my own supervising teacher! I always go over the subject matter that needs to be covered, but I let them know that I regard them as professionals and that I trust that they will succeed. I encourage them to do things the way they are most comfortable. I serve as a mentor and guide, offering advice when needed, and praising all the good things that happen. They all tell me that they appreciate being treated more as co-teachers than students, and all have gone on to establish their own classrooms.
I hear of other supervising teachers who treat their student teachers as badly as mine treated me, and all I can say is, what a waste of good talent! With a growing teacher shortage, we should be doing our best to help these students develop skills that will enable them to be successful and happy as teachers.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Is it just me, or do other teachers start having dreams about school around this time of the summer? I love teaching, and I love working with kids, so it's not as if I dread going back. Every year I have dreams (nightmares) of the upcoming class, and it's mostly the same scenario: The kids come in, they start running around, and no matter what I say or do they won't stop being wild and crazy! It's always way more kids than can fit in my classroom, so there's never enough space to sit. Sometimes we're on the playground and they start running off the school grounds, and I spend the whole dream trying to bring them back! This whole thing is just so different from the way things really are! Anybody else out there having these dreams?
Some of the younger kids (second graders)that I teach have the strangest reactions when they see me outside of the school setting. You 'd never think that I spend 7 1/2 hours a day with them by their behavior when we accidentally bump into one another! Lots of times they are hardly able to get out a weak "Hi", then they hide behind their parent!
Recently I was at Target and one of my boys came whizzing around the corner on the shopping cart, took one look at me, and stopped dead in his tracks. He looked at me as if I might turn him in for reckless driving! I asked him how he was doing and he said, "Oh, Mrs. S., uh, I'm okay. I'm just shopping with my grandma." After a short talk, I told him I'd see him at school. Then he moved the cart very slowly back to wherever he was going, looking over at me the whole time until he was out of sight! It was weird, since he'd never been in any kind of trouble with me all year.
Another time, I ran into a boy and his mom at the grocery store. This little guy had been in trouble with me at school that day for annoying others in his learning club. He saw me before his mom did, and his eyes had this look of dread that said, "Oh, crap! Not who I wanted to run into right now!" He apparently thought I 'd spill the beans to his mom right there in the store. Of course I didn't, since that wasn't the proper time or place. As I exchanged pleasantries with his mom, he stood silently, waiting for the big reveal! His mom finally told him to tell me "hi". He was so obviously stunned and relieved when I didn't say anything to his mom, that I had to chuckle to myself as I walked away!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Given the -450 point carnage in the overall stock market DOW average today and yesterday, CLCT seems almost immune to these trends, like the company is in a separate protected universe (pun intended) .........
Sentiment: Strong Buy
The only thing that is immune Peanut Butter Cup is your brain registering any activity. You just have to be related to Dunbar.
Another huge drop this morning. Heading back to the 11's by month end and single digits by the end of next quarter.
you would think that higher interest rates and lower PM prices would eventually effect the company negatively at some point.


text:
THS gets boost from star's foundation
When matchbox twenty frontman Rob Thomas appears in concert at Harrah's Tunica on August 27, he will have a special announcement to make.
The Tunica Humane Society has been selected as one of the beneficiaries of the foundation established by Thomas and his wife.
The Sidewalk Angels Foundation is a New York-based nonprofit that works hand in hand with charities across America to address social issues for humans and animals. The Foundation has raised nearly half a million dollars since its founding in 2003, for organizations like Pets Alive, Blythedale Children's Hospital and the Animal House in Jamaica.
Recipients are selected based on past program success, demonstrable use for future funds and resources and a shared charitable philosophy. According to Thomas' web site, the Foundation typically chooses smaller, grass-roots organizations for assistance, believing they are more in touch with their community's needs and have more impact.
"This is the most wonderful news for us," THS Executive Director Sandy Williams said. "(The Foundation) has already sent us $2500 to assist us right now until the concert tour is over.
Latest News
Deadlines for November vote are approaching Tomorrow (Saturday, October...
Rosa Fort Homecoming 2016 HOMECOMING 2016 – Rosa...
Future looked bright for Tunica in 1993 Tunica County opened...
'Highway killer' convicted in retrial A man who went on...
Fifteen Years Later One Tunican's special...
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8


text:
Hong Kong-listed power tools manufacturer Techtronic Industries (TTI) showed strong growth in its financial results for the year ended December 31. The company, which is celebrating its 25th year, says the solid performance was observed across all businesses, resulting in excellent growth.
The good financial showing was the result of strength in new products, geographic expansion, and significant operational efficiencies in a period of rising input costs, the company said in its stock exchange announcement.
Techtronic's turnover was HK$26.4 billion for the full year, representing a 10 per cent increase over 2009. The full-year profit attributable to owners of the company was HK$740 million, an increase of 50.7 per cent over the previous year, and earnings per share increased 45.1 per cent to 46.23 HK cents over the previous year.
TTI chairman Stephan Horst Pudwill says: 'We are pleased with these results. Entering 2011, our excellent product portfolio and superior brands give us strong confidence, and the group will capitalise on the opportunities and drive further growth.' Joseph Galli, TTI's CEO, says: 'We continued to invest in developing exciting new products, building our brands, expanding global operations, and implementing cost-containment programmes. These actions have further strengthened TTI's market leadership position. Our strong growth and improvement in profit margins underscores the effectiveness of our strategies. I am very excited about TTI's future.'
TTI continued to invest in developing exciting new products, building its brands, expanding global operations, and implementing cost-containment programmes. The company says these actions have further strengthened its market leadership position and have increased demand for its brands and products.
'During the period, our gross profit margin increased to 32.2 per cent, up from 31.3 per cent in 2009. This was a result of ongoing new product introductions and efficiency gains through broad, systematic cost reduction and productivity programmes put in place that countered rising input costs,' the company said in its statement to the stock exchange.
Earnings before interest and tax increased by 33.1 per cent to HK$1.3 billion, representing a margin improvement of 80 basis points.
Additionally, Techtronic initiated the restructuring of its German power-tool manufacturing and gradual relocation to its Czech Republic and China facilities, which will further enhance profitability going forward. A non-recurring provision of HK$208 million was taken for the full year and no further charges are expected. Earnings before interest, tax and one-time charges was HK$1.51 billion, 54.4 per cent above 2009.
'We continue to manage our working capital with an improvement in inventory days. We are comfortable with our current working capital level to meet our service requirements and fund our business growth. Our gearing position improved to 72.9 per cent at the end of the year from 78.6 per cent in the first half of 2010,' the firm says. On its branding, TTI says its portfolio of leading brands continued to generate outstanding growth through brand extensions into new products and categories.
TTI's brands hold leading positions in their respective markets and have created a loyal following with end-users. The company intends to expand its brand reach into new product categories and under-represented markets. TTI says that its commitment to launching new innovative products and its leadership position in cordless technology, particularly lithium-ion, continues to drive growth. New products accounted for approximately one-third of global sales last year.
TTI's new product development process maximises speed-to-market, with a deep understanding of the customers' needs, allowing the company to deliver a continuous stream of innovative new products that help grow TTI's market share.
'Our relentless focus on cost containment has been beneficial to the group, with gross margin improvements over the past two consecutive years. Value engineering projects and supplier initiatives across the group continue to offset rising material and labour costs, building sustainable margin improvements. Product mix, volume leverage and accelerated integration of our production facilities are further improving operating performance,' the firm says. TTI's recently constructed Asia Industrial Park has absorbed the increase in production volumes from the relocation of its outdoor products manufacturing into the facility last year, and higher volume from its businesses.
At the beginning of this year, the completion of its Asia Innovation Centre will bring research and development synergies, and productivity efficiencies that will further enhance its already best-in-class, speed-to-market capabilities.
The company's directors have recommended a final dividend of 6.25 HK cents per share for the year ended December 31, payable to shareholders whose names appear on the register of members of the company on May 20. This payment, together with the interim dividend of 3.75 HK cents per share paid on September 29 last year, makes a total payment of 10 HK cents per share for 2010.


text:
Aluminum Blinds
Faux Wood Blinds
Wood Blinds
Cellular Shades
Melhanna Shades
Pleated Shades
Sheer Shades
Inspire 2" Premium Finish
The Inspire 2" Premium Finish blinds simulate the look and feel of a lacquered hardwood blind. Inspire faux wood blinds are designed for high humidity areas like bathrooms and kitchens.
Inspire blinds meet the NFPA 701 specifications for fire and flammability.
Installation Instructions
updated: 09/12/2014file size: - (4454K)
Inspire 2-1/2" Faux Wood Blinds come available in a Plantation style slat.


text:
By using this site you agree to the use of cookies for analytics, personalised content and ads. Read more
By using this site you agree to the use of cookies for analytics, personalised content and ads. Read more
18-03-2012 04:34 - edited 18-03-2012 04:36
18-03-2012 04:34 - edited 18-03-2012 04:36
After switching to the new update of Skype (ver. 184.108.40.206 ), I stopped getting messages from people as quickly and I also realized when I was sending messages, they would either be pending or say they were sent but, my friends would not get them for a long amount of time. They have gotten messages I sent a day later, even though they were online at the time I sent it.
This has happened with four or five people now repeatedly and I keep having the same issues.
When they send me messages, if Skype is acting up, I will not get them for up to two days. Some of my friends also reported never getting my messages, even though Skype says I sent them. I also have trouble seeing people online now. If I log out and come back, a person who was online before will appear offline for about ten to thirty minutes and then suddenly appear online again. Even though the person never logged out on their end.
I have updated my Skype and I have tried the "log out and log back in" method. It isn't working anymore. I have tried repeatedly sending messages after my friend has tried to message me back, that doesn't help either. I deleted my config file which I saw helped with this problem on another forum post, but it didn't help me either.
The old versions had this same problem, but not nearly as bad as this new version. It only happened a couple times a week on the old versions... but this is just terrible. I have heard people with an older version of Skype talking to people with a newer version could be causing this problem, but this is four or five people on my entire Skype list that I can barely get a message through to. I have been forced to put a message in my Skype status about it because people think I am ignoring them, when I am truthfully not getting the messages from them.
I have used Skype for years now, but I am seriously considering switching to another IM system if I cannot get this fixed. It is just much too annoying.
Extra Information:
Skype Version 184.108.40.206
Windows Vista 64-bit Home Premium
Cable Internet connected wirelessly, brand new router (I didn't start having this issue directly after buying the router, so I doubt it is the router, all other websites and programs are working fine.)
18-03-2012 05:14
18-03-2012 05:14
18-03-2012 10:35
18-03-2012 10:35
Yeah, it seems to be getting worse with every version released. I wish I never updated mine.
18-03-2012 21:40
18-03-2012 21:40
Same problem here. Have 188.8.131.52 and it's especially with acc of my friend... -.-
20-03-2012 11:50 - edited 20-03-2012 11:50
20-03-2012 11:50 - edited 20-03-2012 11:50
I asked a few of my friends that I am having major problems contacting their versions of Skype. A couple of them were behind and are going to update to see if that helps. Ask your friends to try upgrading. I am going to see if them upgrading helps at all.
11-07-2012 02:26
11-07-2012 02:26
same here, and i just downloaded the latest version on 07/06/2012, what gives skype?
i have windows vista 64-bit operating system, i have skype v. 22.214.171.124.
11-07-2012 07:30
11-07-2012 07:30
hi, same problem here even the files cannot be transfer using the new ver5.10 any help
11-07-2012 10:17
11-07-2012 10:17
The same problem with my 126.96.36.199
I've got Windows 7 x64 and connect to Internet via another computer that has direct Internet connection. The workaround I've found is to launch Skype from that second computer, then there are no delays or missing messages. But I want it to work from mine actually
12-07-2012 12:50
12-07-2012 12:50
Just updated to version 184.108.40.206. The lag is so bad it is not usable. Things I send don't get delivered for minutes. Will have to move to Google chat.
12-07-2012 14:45
12-07-2012 14:45
wow, so it's not just me . . . i wonder how they will fix this??


text:
Reviewed By Gary S (OAKRIDGE, OR) Reviewed for a 2007 Toyota Sienna —7/19/2014 12:58 PM
These brakes are quieter and seem to stop more quickly than the old worn out brake pads did. I guess that would make sense though.
Reviewed By Ramon D (San Francisco, CA) Reviewed for a 2006 Toyota Sienna —8/9/2008 7:08 PM
I have only 10,000 miles on this van used only on weekends. I could not stand the weak brakes it had until I came across this website and tried it out. I am happy I did. I was about to sell this van because I was unhappy with the brakes. My other car is a 2007 Mercedes Benz C280 and you can feel the quality between the two cars, until now. The EBC Supreme Brahe Pads are quiet and have supreme stopping power wet and dry. It Is like night and day.


text:
Clearance- Waterford Wedding Announcement Crystal Frame - Bed Bath & Beyond
Fine crystal frame has two openings to display two 4" x 6" photos, or a photo and your wedding invitation. A beautiful and elegant way to commemorate that special day with cross cuts surrounded by lovely hearts.
Shop your local store to avoid shipping fees!
Shop your local store to avoid shipping fees!
Flag this deal
What's the matter?


text:
Depends on the teacher. I studied some with Lew Soloff in NY and there was 0 feeling of pressure. Same when I played a bit for Roger Ingram. No judging, just a good ear and a good guy. Then a good friend, a local pro here in LA offered me a couple of lessons, and it was torture: he'd stare at my chops, react to every change in sound, really tough to focus, and I occasionally have to play next to him! A bit different in that context, but the lessons are hereby cancelled!
Regarding your playing, it seems like you're headed in the right direction. Don't put too much undo stress on your chops and RELAX. What is the absolute worst thing that can happen? Putting things in perspective always helps my keep my cool in an audition situation.
yea well some wierd things happened with my chops, it was freezing cold for us down here (we thought it was cold) and i missed it by 1 chair.
so i was the alternate...
but something happenedd to some other trumpet that i got moved up,
and i got in by luck...
the concert was this past friday and it was fun, but it wouldve been nice
to not be last chair!
i got a talk from my middle school director and he told me to not worry, that i still have next year.
it was disappointing in a way because i have beaten a lot of the player before wether it was middle school or freshman year. (10th grade i didnt audition) but yea i still have next year, and i WILL make my comeback
(hopefully my chops dont act weird!!)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


text:
This was actually bday cake for a friend. Bottom is yellow, top is strawberry, both have choc. icing (her request), and it's tinted blk. Topper is real mexican sugar skulls with royal icing...very hard to do because they have to be done just right or won't set up.
CakeCentral.com is the world's largest cake community for cake decorating professionals and enthusiasts.
(if this is a private computer)
Yes please, register now!


text:
Michigan Mountain Biking Association
JeffCobb7795 wrote:The trail looks great and the weather looks dry for a few days so enjoy some sweet riding! The whole trail has been weed whacked so it should be good for a couple of weeks.
Feel free to e-mail the Ottawa county parks department to encourage them to allow us to expand into the next phase as soon as possible. They need to hear positive feedback on this trail.
JeffCobb7795 wrote:We will be working Saturday from 9:00 a.m. ? 4:00 (come any time or for the whole day).
Pick up tools at the trailer and see the note I will leave to indicate where on the trail we will be working.
Bring your gloves and water.
Taco bar lunch will be provided by our sponsor Main Street Bicycle Company of Zeeland and Hudsonville at 12:30.
Return to West Michigan Mountain Bike Alliance
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


text:
I just did this cake today for my best friend who is having Christmas in September with her church choir. It is Butter Fudge cake with Strawberry MMF. My first doll cake. It was fun! Hope you like it.
CakeCentral.com is the world's largest cake community for cake decorating professionals and enthusiasts.
(if this is a private computer)
Yes please, register now!


text:
Share your style: #myonepieceAdd Photo
Richly Antiqued Pan Chandelier w/Painted Opal Shades, c1925 Item # R3644
It would be hard to overstate the popularity of pan-type fixtures like this one during the 1920s. Gracing bungalows, cottages and Cape Cods, their simple center spinnings are enhanced by decorative arms and warmly antiqued brass, The uncommon set of three matching paint-tinted shades adds color and intimacy to the fixture.
- Historical Style: Colonial Revival
- Notes: new turnkey sockets
Product Specifications
Need to know all about the details of this product? Get the full set of specs right here.
Want to chat?
We'd love to help you pick the right product or answer any questions you may have. Try our or call us at 888-401-1900.
You May Also Like
Customer Service
Call us at 1-888-401-1900
More Information
Need assistance with handcrafted solutions? Call us at 888-401-1900, useor email customer service.