Wikipedia

Talk:2008 Mauritanian coup d'état

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Military Coup 2008

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am questioning the use of arrest by the military coup. No legal authority authorized the "arrest" so I would use the proper "detained" as the CNN article states here. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/08/06/mauritania.coup.ap/index.html. Also, I question using bloodless because no one really knows what is happening fully.--Truthfulchat (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The President's daughter uses the word arrest here[1], but "detained" would work too, I suppose. Benjaminx (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where is it?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I had to go to Google to find out where in the world is Mauritania. Wikipedia articles about countries often have a sidebar giving vital statistics and details about the subject country, but scant help in locating where it is in the wider world. Should Wikipedia add this to the standards? 64.160.20.30 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Mauritania article has a map of where it is in the world. This article uses the same map, what else would you like to see? FFMG (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some background

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Seems these fellas http://w-sahara.blogspot.com/ really know what's been happening: were not surprised Abdul Aziz was in charge iof this, and have links to some Franco-mauritanian dissident sources in the run up. T L Miles (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

folks working here might also check out cridem.org and taqadoumy. The articles linked provide the listing of the ten man State Council (follows). T L Miles (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
The State Council, who will be in charge of running the country until the next presidential election, will consist of ten persons, including five soldiers and five civilians:

- General Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, Chairman of the Council, Head of State; - General Mohamed Ould Ghazouany, Head of the Army; - General Felix Negri, Head of the National Guard; - Colonel Ahmed Ould Bekrine, Head of the Gendarmerie; - Colonel Mohamed Ould El Hadi, Director of the National Security Agency; - Ba M'Bare, President of the Senate; - Messaoud Ould Boulkheir, President of the National Assembly; - Ahmed Ould Daddah, Leader of the Democratic Opposition; - Abdallahi Ould Ely Salem, President of the Constitutional Council; - Aly Mohamed Cherif, Head of the Majority Group of the National Assembly.

A note: the composition of the council, as first announced, was recinded, allegedly because the civilians all refused to participate See [2]. Also of note: [3] France is upping its codemnation in what may be sabre rattling about removing the coup leaders. US cuts off aid. As the leaders appear to be spinning rhetoric (anti-terrorism, anti-fundementalism, pro democracy) for the West, this does not appear to be the result they were planning on. T L Miles (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Opposition Response

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should there be some opposition response added? Richardkselby (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some issues

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not going to get deeply involved in this article, but there are two issues with recent edits (buried in MANY edits over as short period) that I suggest regular contributors take a look (and decide for themselves). 1) Statement of French Socialist party removed because an editor stated "It has to be translated into English first" or some such. The text was translated into English before insertion (i.e. an English translation was used). If the point is that references must point to sources must already in English, then that's just plain wrong. 2)Taya "not a Dictator" because "the US and Israel didn't use that term. Plenty of other sources (most, even) use that term. He was a president who ruled for 21 years after taking power by force. Dictator is appropriate title. Sorry.T L Miles (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

"On 12 December 1984, while Ould Haidalla was out of the country, Ould Taya seized power and declared himself Chairman of the Military Committee for National Salvation." Sounds like a dictator to me. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Taya held multiparty elections and it is POV to call him a dictator. We don't need to have an argument about something like that; it's basic NPOV policy. Everyking (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
If there are sources that call him a dictator, then it's fair to do so. The source attached to that section refers to a dictator, so it is not unreasonable to refer to him as that in the article. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is what the source used says: "The 2005 coup in which Aziz played a key planning role was popular locally and ended a 21-year dictatorship, paving the way for the first truly democratic elections in two decades in 2007, which Abdallahi won." That is refelected exactly in the edits I made. If you want the article to say something different, you need to find another source. And not calling someone who held absolute power for 21 years a dictator could also be considered POV, especially when there are plenty of sources to back that up. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't even know what to say. We have a NPOV policy and we don't simply parrot the characterizations used by sources. You tell me to find a source saying he was not a dictator—do you not realize that the Mauritanian government maintained for 13 years under Taya that the country was a multiparty democracy? Do you not realize that its claim was broadly recognized internationally at that time? Personally, yes, my viewpoint is that Taya was a dictator, but I'm upholding the NPOV policy here. (Furthermore, the idea that the 2007 election was the first truly democratic election in two decades is bizarre—there were no democratic elections in the 1980s; the country was under military rule. In the 1960s and '70s, the country was under single-party rule. The claim is incoherent.) Everyking (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Harry is also edit warring with me to preserve this inaccurate statement: "This caused Mauritania's parliament to hold a no-confidence vote which led to the new government's resignation, and caused 48 MPs to walk out on the ruling party." One small problem—no such vote was ever held! Additionally, the departure of deputies from the ruling party happened in early August— the censure motion (which did not result in an actual vote) and consequent resignation of the government was in early July. Why am I being reverted by someone who doesn't understand the events in question? Everyking (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

At least I took it to the talk page. You continued reverting without discussion. No, what I am saying is that sources must back up what is in the article. You have made changes again that do not reflect what the source (footnote 2, AP article) says, yet you are using that source to support what is said. You need to find a different source to support what you have included in the article, because the source that is there now certainly doesn't. As far as NPOV, when does someone become a dictator? When the US and Israel say they are, which is the contention when the word was first removed, or when their regime meets the definition of a dictatorship? Harry the Dog WOOF 10:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't recall changing any information under the AP cite, except to change "dictatorship" to "presidency". What are you accusing me of changing? You don't think it faithfully uses the source if I use the NPOV word "presidency" instead of the POV word "dictatorship"? That's simply not true; the cite is used for facts and it isn't necessary to use the same terminology. Nobody is going to dispute that "presidency" is accurate; "dictatorship" just adds a POV flavor, and that's not how we do things. Everyking (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am not accusing you of anything, and there is no need to be so touchy and assume bad faith. The last edit I made, which you reverted stated: "General Muhammad Ould ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz played a key planning role in the 2005 coup that ended the 21-year dictatorship of Maaouya Sid'Ahmed Ould Taya. Aziz backed Abdallahi's candidacy in the subsequent 2007 elections, which Abdallahi won in the first freely-contested elections in over two decades." That comes directly from the AP reference that is used to source the paragraph. You changed the word "dictatorship" and removed "in the first freely-contested elections in over two decades." Both those statements are supported by the source, and the word dictatorship is valid. As I said, not calling it a dictatorship could be seen as POV also, and if there are reliable sources describing it as a dictatorship, and indeed it fits the definition of one, how is it POV to call it that? What I am saying is that if you think the source is inaccurate, find a different source, but don't remove material from the article that is supported by the source because you think it's wrong or you don't like it. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Guys come on .t his is the Maurianita state owned porpaganda machine. We dont have to give any characterizaton to any of the governments/administration that arent present in hte sources that we are siting. If the source does not call it a presidency, then we can't not refer to it as a dictatorship if we do or not want to. Smith Jones (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ouch: I didn't mean to start WWIII! I admit that I am frankly ignorant to the electoral history of Taya's government, but having seen User:Everyking's work, I'm inclined to trust his/her judgement. I would echo the comment above, though, about the Mauritania Press Service. Might I suggest that the issue be noted as one of opinion and that both points of view be referenced (assuming the mainstream press reports of Taya being a Dictator that I've seen are widespread) - with some idea of what groups might commonly hold what views? But, as I said, my prejudice is to trust Everyking on this... T L Miles (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's not a question of trusting an editor. It is a question of Wikipedia policy. If a source is going to be used, it has to be represented accurately in the article. We can't pick and choose from sources the bits we like or agree with. If the source contains erroneous information or misinformation, then another source should be found. But as long as the source remains attached to the article, the article should reflect what it says, not what we would wish it to say. Otherwise sourcing on Wikipedia becomes a nonsense. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Let's say we have two sources: one refers to Person A, a "dictator" or "strongman", in reporting some action taken by that person, while the other source refers to Person A, a "democratically elected leader", in reporting the same action. Your opinion, I take it, is that it is unacceptable to use both sources in covering Person A's action and have the article simply say that Person A is a "President" (a basic fact agreed upon by everyone), without taking a stance on his democratic legitimacy? You feel that if any source has a bias for or against a subject, we must also employ that source's bias in writing our article, or else we can't use the source? Everyking (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
No, I am saying that if we choose to use a source, we must accurately reflect what its says, and we must be prepared to be challenged on the choice of sources. If there is a variety of opinion on a subject, then that should also be reflected in the article, with as many references as are needed to source the variety. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Look. We can't call Taya a dictator as if it's an established fact; that's a plain violation of the NPOV policy. What do you want to do? We could hypothetically cite sources calling him a dictator, mentioning that as a viewpoint (not as established fact), but clearly this article is not the place to cite multiple sources regarding the extent of Taya's democratic legitimacy or lack thereof; any discussion of Taya should be very brief and basic. Do you want to find a source that doesn't call him a dictator and use that instead? What solution do you think is appropriate? Everyking (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
How do you establish that someone is a dictator or not? How does WP establish that Hitler was a dictator? Or Pinochet? I agree that the article on Taya is the best place to discuss the various depictions of his regime, which is why I introduced totally neutral language to this article. I hope we can agree that is the most appropriate solution. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We have some idea what the international response is, but can anybody find information on the response of the citizens of Mauritania? Unplusreveur (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

There have been demonstrations for and against the coup, and that is included the article, but I don't know of any international media reports that attempt to give a general assessment of the popular reaction. Everyking (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Mauritanian 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.

 Y 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 18:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2008 Mauritanian 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.

 Y 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 02:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on 2008 Mauritanian 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2008 Mauritanian 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) 15:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 2008 Mauritanian 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) 04:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Mauritanian_coup_d%27état&oldid=1196519906"