Talk:2015 Burundian coup attempt

Merging into 2015 Burundian unrest

Should we merge this into 2015 Burundian unrest? It would follow the example of 2014 Burkinabé uprising which was also a series of protests before a military coup.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so – a coup is a separately notable event. Number 57 17:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"separately notable event" - no, it's a continuation of exactly the same issue, with the same background. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed for now. However, if this thing expands we can keep it separate.120.62.26.243 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge looks more like civil unrest if the army is divided, and half support the president and half support the general. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge per above arguments. Charles Essie (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose other similar articles exist Template:African coups d'État. Can certainly be expanded. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this event should be put into that template, and merging this would still allow it to be there, perhaps with a piped wikilink. Mamyles (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Notable event in itself. Stamboliyski (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support' Especially as the coup has failed. Rmhermen (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge. Both articles need to be presented with each other for proper context. Length is not an issue at this point in time. Mamyles (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Notable event in itself. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Notable --Kaiyr (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Opposing on the basis of 'this is notable' does not aid the discussion. The question here is not about notability, it's that the material in this article would be best presented with full details about the unrest. Please see WP:MERGEREASON, this is a great example of points 1, 2, and 4. I cannot think of any reason that we would want this article to be presented separately from the causal unrest. Mamyles (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Under WP:MERGEREASON it clarifies that it should be merged if there is the same scope - clearly an article on the unrest as a whole has a different scope than an article about the coup specifically. Ottawakismet (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- It seems that all opposition to the merge is based on the argument that it is a "notable event" although Mamyles has pointed out that that is not sufficient. I think as long as there is no further arguments against merging we can now merge this especially since the name of the other article has been changed from 2015 Burundi Protests to 2015 Burundian unrest.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is actually "support" vote, not a neutral comment Ottawakismet (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - being independently notable is a valid argument for retention. That is, notability does not mandate a stand-alone article, but it a contributing factor in the decision. Here, it makes sense to have a stand-alone article so that all the details of the coup can be covered without overrunning the broader article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The event is a distinct event, though part of a larger series of events. No matter if this turns out to be the end of the unrest, a coup d'etat deserves its own treatment, and more detail and nuance about the coup itself can go into this article instead of the unrest article. It is useful to keep separate. Ottawakismet (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

hutu

Are both of Commanders hutu?--Kaiyr (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes.120.62.26.243 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Expand article

This article contains less information about the coup than the unrest article does. Rmhermen (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The content can be copied or moved. I focused on adding coup-related content on the unrest article because I figured (due to the template) that this one might get redirected, and maybe no one would bother merging the content. Everyking (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Burundian coup d'état attempt. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312072303/http://www.globalpost.com/article/6549301/2015/05/14/coup-leaders-deputy-says-burundi-putsch-has-failed to http://www.globalpost.com/article/6549301/2015/05/14/coup-leaders-deputy-says-burundi-putsch-has-failed

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) 06:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)