Jump to content

Talk:2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état

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

Coup?

[edit]

While it may be a de facto coup, Mugabe is still the President. Though I doubt he will be. I think a military takeover may be better as the military now seems de facto administrator. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A change in who holds the position of head of state is not and never has been necessary to constitute a coup. Were changing the head of state to be a necessary defining factor of establishing a coup, self-coups, for example, would be impossible. Rather, as Wikipedia's own article Coup d'état expresses, a coup d'état "is the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus." The Zimbabwean army has extraconstitutionally seized control of the Zimbabwean state; that's definitely a coup, regardless of Mugabe's status.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confirmation they're actually taking over. What if it turns out that this is only a temporary step to bar Mugabe from administration? That was the problem. If they really are not seizing power, if it's only a temporary measure, I thought it shouldn't be called as a coup for now. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources for calling it a coup? Just because the AU says it seems like a coup doesn't mean it is. Mattojgb (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this article, for example. On the other hand, the current issue of The Week magazine says it isn't a coup. As I said below on the talk page, I think we need to wait for the dust to settle and then look at how secondary sources refer to this event. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "The Sunday Mail (Zimbabwe), as reported in the current issue of The Week magazine (US), says it isn't a coup, it's an intervention". Strawberry4Ever (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a coup tho? --Volvlogia (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacoste?

[edit]

Does there need to be an article on Mnangagwa's 'lacoste' faction given that he's just about to become president and there's an existing article for the G40 faction? I was looking for one and couldn't find it! :) Fourdots2 (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a very good addition to the encyclopedia. --LukeSurl t c 12:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree however I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to write it :) can anyone do so? Fourdots2 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made the article however it's quite short on detail and I'm not very used to doing these things - maybe someone can fill it out :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacoste_(political_faction) Fourdots2 (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 November 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW closure. No support for move other than nominator, and nominator has said "I give up" in edit summary. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état → 2017 Zimbabwean uprising (or other) – This is not a coup. A president has resigned, his vice president was acting president for a few days, the ruling party's nominee has been sworn in: all totally in accordance with the country's constitution. By no definition of the phrase was this a coup d'etat. If it were regarded as as such, other governments would not have been in a position to welcome it, and supranational bodies,most notably the AU, would have been obliged to intervene. There is no legal or governmental authority, within or without Zimbabwe, describing this as a coup. I am not hellbent on 'uprising' as a replacement, but a coup it is not. Kevin McE (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this numerous times above, as per User:Strawberry4Ever "Under the previous constitution there was nothing to prevent Mugabe from appointing his wife as First Vice President and making her his successor. He was forced to resign because of military action contrary to the constitution. It sure sounds like a coup to me. Let's wait a while and see how secondary sources refer to these events after the dust has settled. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)" We have decided to not go ahead with any title changes at the current moment until we can find some secondary sources to cite once the dust has settled on this issue. GippoHippo (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What it sounds like to you is not relevant. If we need an interim title "until the dust has cleared" then it should be as neutral and uncontroversial as possible, which the current title is not. Given that the new leadership of the country is explicitly denying that it was a coup, and that no authoritative source has explicitly described it as such after mature reflection (there may have been some short term responses using this term), it would be a gross neglect of our obligation to maintain a NPOV stance to use the term. Kevin McE (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. Why are we doing this all over again, just after the last one was closed? See above for my reasoning.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (For Now) I agree with Amakuru, it will take some time before any more sources become available for this issue. We've discussed this several times.  —  GippoHippo (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose. This was a coup and was widely described as such by media at the time. The military used its power to bring about the end of a presidency; Mugabe wouldn't have resigned without the military action. That's what a coup is. This one was "bloodless", but it doesn't change the fact the military turned against the civilian government. The term is has negative connotations, and as such Zimbabwe's new leadership have been avoiding it (and other governments happy to see the back of Mugabe are following suit), but Wikipedia is not beholden to these institutions. --LukeSurl t c 12:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a legal and constitutional transfer of power. Thatcher would not have resigned if it were not for the machinations of those who were in a position to do damage to her; that does not make the actions of her cabinet a coup, even if the press at the time, in search of an eye-catching cliche, used the term. Kevin McE (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OED: A violent or illegal seizure of power. Maybe some media use the word inappropriately, but that is no reason why we should not use it accurately, and only accurately. Headline writers do not determine the legal status of an event: that is the perogative of those with authority to make such a declaration. You really can't imagine an objective observer using the word 'uprising'? Really? What do you think I just did? Please provide the definition of coup d'etat upon which you assert such certainty in your perception of accuracy. Name 6 diplomatic or legal entities that have used the word 'coup'. Kevin McE (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think "uprising" is a more objective term than "coup"? Dictionary definition of uprising: "an insurrection or revolt." Synonym: "rebellion." What makes it a coup is that it was successful in changing government, whereas "uprising" or "rebellion" does not imply that. Also, the sudden and decisive change makes "coup d'état" a better term. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force. Crafty bit of selective quotation there, while ignoring the direct questions I asked you. 'Uprising' is a much less precise term, allowing for the political and public elements of the situation, not necessarily carrying the element of illegality, and therefore more suitable in the recent circumstances. Kevin McE (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It fulfills that criteria, too. Putting the president under house arrest was not legal, and was achieved by force or at least the threat of force. This was absolutely a coup by any reasonable definition. Your argument lacks WP:COMMON and is pure equivocation. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source for that definition? And unless you can provide details of any military personnel who took a place in the government, it is not a coup even by this unsourced definition. Kevin McE (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced in the first line of the link to coup d'état. Cite #1. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 1 in this article is a Guardian article that makes no attempt at a definition. Cite 1 in the Coup d'etat article is an abstract from an article behind a subscriber only wall, but is not a dictionary. The abstract does however acknowledge that "absent is a discussion of what makes coups distinct from other forms of anti-regime activity", so any definition therein is only what suits the authors of that article. Let's use dictionaries rather than political journalism to find our definitions. Kevin McE (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go find your dictionary. Lookup snow while you're at it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This was a coup. The military detained and deposed the sitting president and his designated successor. Taking over the TV station so a man in uniform can say "this isn't a coup" doesn't change the fact that... it's a coup. Letting the military's attached political party work out the details of the transfer of power doesn't change it either. This wasn't a popular uprising; this wasn't a civil war; this wasn't an election; this wasn't a constitutional impeachment; this was the military not liking the changes to succession, and forcibly installing a leader of their choice. That's a coup. pauli133 (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a resignation in the face of a show of political and popular opinion. That does not make it a coup. What legal or diplomatic authorities share your opinion? Kevin McE (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"in the face of a show of political and popular opinion" - if that's what you call it when the military take control of the state and place the leader under house arrest, then sure. A show of political and popular opinion it was. Nobody's disputing that the change of government may have been welcomed by the majority of the population, and they're not disputing that it was bloodless (so far), but neither of those things prevent it being a coup. Without military intervention, Mugabe would not have resigned, and the parliament wouldn't have been able to impeach him either.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Insightful chronicle from Reuters

[edit]

This overall chronicle of Mugabe's fall by reuters just got plublished and is quite good. Worth reading and integrating.

--37.169.3.96 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC) (from my mobile phone)[reply]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting this. Notice that Reuters refers to the military action as being a "coup". Strawberry4Ever (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a great source to both read and use for this article. Thanks for sharing! ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Military Conflict

[edit]

Is Template:Infobox Military Conflict the best fit for this event? It seems to be forcing things into a somewhat misleading shape - for example, was Emmerson Mnangagwa really the "Commander" of one side of a military operation, when he wasn't even in the country for the entire duration? Did Phelekezela Mphoko, apparently a "Commander" on Mugabe's side despite also being out of the country for the duration, have any involvement at all? What 'loyal state institutions' were fighting on Mugabe's side?

I'm wondering if Template:Infobox civil conflict, as used on 2016–17 Zimbabwe protests, might be a better fit? TSP (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File nominated for deletion on commons

[edit]
file:c:File:Emmerson Mnangagwa 2017.png Reason:There is a section on the website to request the usage of image. The request was not shown in Wikimedia. "https://www.insidevoa.com/p/5719.html"  subpage:link

Message automatically deposited by a robot on 09:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

The

[edit]

"At a rally, President Mugabe publicly rebuked the and Mnangagwa for the first time." The what? 185.209.198.102 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Zimbabwean_coup_d%27état&oldid=1249965950"