The list included in the post is simply to offer some suggestions for entries into the research challenge. We are not stating that they are 100% confirmed, just that there exists evidence to support these claims.

Yes, categorization and nomenclature do present problems right from the get go. Some would claim that certain events are 'crimes', which may be 100% true, and at the same time these crimes may have been meticulously planned by a group or organization leading up to the event - a conspiracy. This allows for very different interpretations.

Some feel that Coup d'Etats are simply historical crimes, and still others would suggest that they are bona fide conspiracies due to the extensive coordination required to execute a coup.

At the time of a coup, speculation swirls as to who was behind it and were they puppets of a greater power for political or economic gain. People attempt to discern the cause of the event by 'theorizing' about who or what is behind the operation. Then it eventually becomes just an event, crime or struggle for power and is accepted as such - a historic event printed in textbooks as the official narrative. Yet, later still, evidence may emerge that demonstrates that unseen forces were very much involved in the operations and therefore validating some earlier (dissenting) explanation of the events and so-called "conspiracy theories". Ironically, the narrative changes as more solid evidence emerges that makes the old narrative impossible to defend and the prevailing ideology is replaced with dismissive positions such as "yes, it was a conspiracy" but "everyone" knew that at the time.

Thanks for your feedback and comments, we appreciate spirited debate and you have raised some good points here.