Jump to content

Talk:2012 Malian coup d'état

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Universaly condemned?

[edit]

Cited states are mostly NATO affiliates, with big players like India, China and Russia missing. 78.80.4.132 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it also includes the UN, ECOWAS, and the African Union. Russia and China are UN Security Council members, and the latter organization did issue a joint statement condemning the coup. For now I say we stick with the description from the reliable source, but I'd be glad to see another general descriptor added if one can be found. Khazar2 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, a quick Google search did turn up quotes specific to China, India, and Russia; all three are being added to the article. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also tried to expand the section with a few of Mali's neighbors as well (Ghana, Niger, Algeria, etc.). Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan ??

[edit]

I have to question when Taiwan has been listed as a combatant, and why there is no source for it. rather strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.16.85 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malian presidential election, 2012

[edit]

Malian presidential election, 2012 needs to be updated to acount for this. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result..

[edit]

...heavy gunfire heard in parts of Bamako .. LOL--Reader1987 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, seems a bit minor compared to the scale of the rest. I pulled it for now. Khazar2 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into this page. -- RJFF (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that most of the Coup d'état sub-section of the 2012 insurgency in northern Mali article be merged into here. The coup is only one event that is connected with the current Touareg rebellion/Azawad conflict. As we have this article as the main article for this topic, it is redundant hence unnecessary to have the other article cover the coup in detail, too. --RJFF (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, seems rather unnecesarry to have a load of text in the insurgence article when it could just go here instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.226.196 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's clearly not necessary that the insurgency article cover the coup blow-by-blow, and the current coverage seems excessive. However, this coup is the greatest consequence of the Tuareg insurgency so far; it needs to be covered here in at least some detail. Khazar2 (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Most of the news coverage focuses and will continue to focus on the coup and the result, with the insurgency being background information. Unless the insurgency becomes a major story internationally, people will remember the coup and not the insurgency. Michael5046 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is to move content from the insurgency article, which shouldn't be there in that detail, to this article. —Nightstallion 23:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, my mistake. I commented with the assumption that it was to merge the coup article with the insurgency one. Michael5046 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. —Nightstallion 23:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: I thought my statement above was motivation enough, but if you need it in detail: The coup d'état content shouldn't feature in such detail in the insurgency article, as it's related, but not central to that topic, so the content should be merged here and summarized there. —Nightstallion 10:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, if the context of war plays a role, it is not proved that it is the only reason of the putch and sources bring back to us that there is a true will to take power on behalf of certain officers. --Critias (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though its been only 24 hours and the consensus is barely in favour of a merge with 2-1 (dicounting the above "obviously" since we dont vote count (though an admin ought to know better)), lets wait a bit. I was going to go ahead with the merge as i added most content there but it seems that consensus is not wholly supportive of a merge just yet.Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge too much info currently in the wrong place--93.137.182.45 (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The amount of information on the coup at the insurgency page is way out of proportion to what should be just a short summary and the coups effects on the insurgency.XavierGreen (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ill go ahead and merge tomorrow pending this discusion whish seems headed that way.
Though let me ask XG...why SHOULDit be a short summary? Your preconcluding that this is a page on its own when the discussion is whether or not it hould be. and why.Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge: it remains to be seen just how significant the rebellion is in motivating the coup. CNRDR leader Amadou Sanogo mentioned several other factors, including better pay and living conditions for troops garrisoned in Kati (near Bamako). To merge the rebellion and the coup into a single page seems to me an uncritical acceptance of the CNRDR's justification at face value. Chercheur41.203.192.17 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the proposal is not to merge the two pages completely, but simply to reduce the lengthy duplicate discussion of the coup within the insurgency article--at least, that's how I understood it. Khazar2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
exactly, the point is to have less text about the coup in the article 2012 insurgency in northern Mali !! --Reader1987 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Agreed, I just read through both of them for information, and some of it was EXTREMELY redundant. -- Alyas Grey : talk 08:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is unnecessary to have such excessive information that could be used for the coup article. Bzweebl (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I just read through both pages, and they contain almost exactly the same content. I don't see any reason why both pages should be this redundant. Spretznaz (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge eventually Since the coup d'état could change in the near future (along with all current news), perhaps it's a good idea to keep it separate for the time being to accumulate more information on it before merging it with the 2012 insurgency in northern Mali. That way whichever editors ultimately do it can select which information is pertinent and which is not. futur3g4ry (talk) 21:32 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Note that this merge has essentially already happened; I and others copied any relevant information from the insurgency article into the coup article on the first and second days of the coup. Lihaas has kindly taken it on her/himself to cut the coup section of the insurgency article to a reasonable size. I therefore suggest that this discussion be closed, as it appears that these steps are in line with the consensus above. Khazar2 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issues in the introduction

[edit]

Earlier, I had modified the reference to the authorities under incumbent Malian President Amadou Toumani Touré in the introduction from "regime" to "government". I was asked a question about this on my talk page.

The reason I made this change is because 1) "regime" implies some degree of illegitimacy - it amounts to a value judgment what is legitimate to whom. A common example is Russia - Putin's detractors would obviously call it a "regime", but most news sources prefer the more neutral term "government." In this case we should err on the side of caution - a 'government' can be legitimate or illegitimate - it effectively sidesteps this issue. 2) Given that Toure is democratically elected (whether you believe it was a fair election or not), calling his government a name that is often used for non-elected governments can be considered inappropriate. 3) Furthermore, calling it his personal regime - i.e. "the regime of Toure", goes one step further implying that Mali is basically a dictatorship under Toure - somewhat similar to the "Assad Regime". This is again, a value judgment. Unless it can be shown that the majority of credible news sources refer to the government of Mali as a "regime", then a more neutral "government" will do for now. Colipon+(Talk) 02:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No reason to use the pejorative regime unless it's such a common descriptor for the government that the article is not complete without it. I don't even like using it for the governments of Burma or Belarus, unless it's cited to a specific author. Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few points. I totally agree with both of you and many of my edits have veen devoted to neutralising the term "regime" by replacing it with whichever word it is being used synonymously with. This could be government, governance, administration, system, structure, era (eg. during the XYZ regime), authorities (eg. incarcerated by the XYZ regime), security forces (eg. massacred by the XYZ regime). In fact there is a whole batch of suitable replacements for the term and every one of these that I have listed is neutral, non-confrontational, and they do not betray the political inclination of the editor. Without question, if an editor were to switch any of those words for "regime", it could be deemed provocative and non-constructive.
The word "regime" does have a meaning though, and it is not too difficult to ascertain that cognates include regimental, regal and even royal. Editors have argued with me that the term is neutral, and one user pointed out that "democratic regime" or the word used to refer to western countries without being detremental produces thousands of results on the search engines. Nobody implies that there is a legal factor with the word "regime" but there are questions as to its usage. Colipon mentioned "credible news sources", and those which WP has deemed credible, sadly, all use "regime". And this is where the question rises. It is clear they use the word in place of "government" but they stop short of using the same word when glorifying more favourable countries. The BBC will give you "Assad regime" and "Gaddafi regime" but not "Sarkozy regime" (I typed "Sarkozy regime" BBC [sic] this minute and found nothing published by BBC on first pages). So the leading question is, what do we as editors do? Do we take the dictionary meaning without its negative connotations and spread it liberally? Or do we adapt the unofficial policy of the "credible" sources and restrict it to systems out of favour with the west? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is to take the connotation into account and simply use the neutral term. It's a shame it has to work that way, but I feel like that's the English language for you. Interesting question, though.
In this particular case, however, I'd be surprised if "regime" is in common use to describe Toure's democratic government anyway, which probably resolves the issue in any case. Khazar2 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just some food for thought: 'regime' is used by some news sources, 'government' by others, and others yet simply use a combination of the two. (Globe and Mail; (FT); The Australian). We can take the same 'hybrid' approach here by calling it 'regime' in some contexts and 'government' in others, but it is my considered opinion that the intro paragraph should contain neutral language. Colipon+(Talk) 01:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Let's be honest with ourselves, we all know exactly what "regime" means. Out go the Democrats and in come Republicans in the U.S. or Canada, but that never spells regime change. In order for there to be regime change in the States, you'd have to oust the shadowy figures that force the hand of the president, analysts say that these are the corporate tycoons but any further discussion is pure original research. Of course if this did happen, you might see a change in U.S. foreign policy such as recognition of the State of Palestine along with a reversal in its Israeli relations. Israel also, if it were to see regime change may very well adopt an Arab-friendly policy as there is a portion of "anti-regime" Israelis, but they don't dominate. WWII Germany could be said to have involved THREE potential regimes: Nazi Germany which had full control; Communist Germany which came to control East Germany with Soviet help, but was nevertheless a faction in the war, banned from 1933 and forced to continue operations from secret locations; and proponents of today's Federal Germany which after WWII came to control West Germany with western help, this entity modelled itself as "democratic" but banned the Communist Party (affiliated to East Germany) from 1956. It may not have affected many since its support was low but it nevertheless sent a message to the entire electorate that they could not vote them them whether they wished to or not, and only a minority but with power can implement such a measure. This is all in addition to both post-WWII German states further banning affiliation to Nazi Germany (East Germany banned all opposition, full stop). My point, THREE regimes, one national short-form name: Germany. Myanmar (Burma) is also very interesting. People talk about the "military regime to have ruled since 1962" but ask any expert and they will all tell you that there have been TWO distinct remiges, the point was one replaced the other whilst the same government ruled. In short, Ne Win ruled from 1962 to 1988; he is reported by good sources to have been behind the change but continued to give the orders, so the regime remained. However, years later when his son-in-law attempted a coup which would have really brought Ne Win back into light, the plot failed and Ne Win remained under house arrest until his death in 2002. So regime somewhere DID change but nobody really saw. The removal of Gaddafi from Libya was evident regime change and for all multy-party activity the state will see, there is to be no constitutional representation for the portion of the population (largely on the west of the country) who supported the Jamhariya. Syria is heading the same way with the SNC opposition already having declared that conquest shall be the only means and the Ba'ath Party will be banned as in post-2003 Iraq. By contrast, the demonstrations in both Egypt and Yemen were arbitrary revolts by the systems' detractors, uninitiated by any opposition figures and subsequently, the heads of state fell but the ladders which held them in place remain. No government in waiting=NO REGIME CHANGE! The most suited synonym for regime is actually "system" but alone, it sounds weak. I agree however that "regime" is not neutral and should stay out of intros. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coup outcome

[edit]

At what point does this go from "ongoing" to finished ? The government has been overthrown, the President in hiding, the junta seems to have control now and there dosnt appear to be any sort of counter attack by loyalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.57.223 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The situation is clearly ongoing--enormous international and internal pressure, rumors of a potential countercoup, negotiations beginning with all parties, etc.--but I'm not sure whether the coup itself can be said to be ongoing without continued fighting. Khazar2 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...chanting 'Down with Sanogo' and 'Liberate the OTRM'."

[edit]

This bit is under the 26th March section, referencing this page: "Mali Coup Leaders Partially Reopen Airport" However, I wasn't able to find either of those (or any reference to "chanting" at all) in the referenced page. It's possible that ABC changed the content of the page and removed the cited text, in which case a new source needs to be found. (I'm also assuming that the "OTRM" mentioned there is actually the ORTM, or Office de Radiodiffusion-Télévision du Mali.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherGregory (talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd--ABC must have cut the story down shorter after I looked at it. Here's the complete text at the Guardian.[1] Thanks for the catch--changing the citation now. Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

Our timeline's getting lengthy, as there's new stuff almost every day. I think we should keep expanding it as long as this is notable enough to get daily worldwide attention, of course. But at what point does it become necessary to break the "timeline" out into its own article, and keep only a summary here? We're in Day 11 now, I believe. This is my first ITN project, so I'm not really sure how this will work. Khazar2 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the insurgency info included here?

[edit]

Information about the MNLA insurgency and the fall of new towns to them is included in this article, but the relevant infor is also going in the actual article for the insurgency. This is an article for a coup so there not really much point having info unrelated to the process of the coup.

I've personally tried to keep insurgency info to a minimum, but the two are closely linked. Sanogo named the rebellion as the primary cause of the coup, news stories continue to link the two, and the rebellion's recent successes have been directly attributed to the coup. The fall of Gao, for example, was directly discussed in terms of its impact on the coup.[2] Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prime minister

[edit]

Should we add Prime Minister Cissé Mariam Kaïdama Sidibé to the list of commanders in the infobox? She is the second highest official in the country. Also many officials have been arrested which I'm surprised hasn't been added to the article even Prime Minister Cissé Mariam Kaïdama Sidibé was arrested, [3] thus making her a POW. Spongie555 (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arrest of the foreign minister and his hunger strike was added, but oddly that's gotten much more international coverage. I'm not sure the degree to which Wikipedia considers Allafrica.com a reliable source, but I notice that international news organizations don't appear to have confirmed Sidibe's arrest.[4] This makes me wonder if this is still conjecture in some way; I'd suggest holding off for now. As for the commander issue, I say that we leave Sidibe out for now unless it's demonstrated that she's taking part int he conflict in some way. Khazar2 (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking again, I see that AllAfrica is reprinting an Amnesty International press release.[5] That seems at least strong enough to say something like "AI reported that Cisse had been captured". Thanks for posting this...Khazar2 (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double 2012 coup

[edit]

We now have a second 2012 Malian coup with Diarra's arrest and resignation (similar to the first events) with same perpetrators (ive added to Sanogo's article). Suggest calling either 2012 Malian coups d'état or April 2012 Malian coup d'état and December 2012 Malian coup d'état with due disambiguation(Lihaas (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Which sources say the December events are a coup? As I recall, the junta said it's not a coup, because the head of state remains in office. Everyking (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BBC doesn't appear to be using the word "coup" to describe events, FWIW, but treating this as a continuation of Sanogo's takeover.[6] I think for now the most logical thing is to keep the material in one place. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the definition of a coup was the ouster. But anyhoo..Stick with khazar's view(Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2012 Malian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Malian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2012 Malian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2012 Malian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Malian_coup_d%27état&oldid=1196618159"