Talk:2014 Burkina Faso uprising

Coup?

Keep an eye on changing the article to a coup should there be some changes. Its RAPIDLY evolving now and Campaore is out of the country.Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw some news articles earlier today describing it as a coup, it appears not that it may infact be an auto-coup as there are articles stating that the president will remain the head of the transitional government.XavierGreen (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Doubt it. He fled to Senegal. (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

Then it is a coup!XavierGreen (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

He went off his own volition, it appears. no military forced him out. (albeit I haven't read the news in about 10 hours or so)Lihaas (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Riots

It seems that this page's creator, Lihaas, would like to not only categorize the protests as an uprising but categorize the people who are protesting as "rioters". This appears to be racist since we all know that sterotypes about wild and savage African go back a long way. More importantly, there simply aren't sources backing this up and the vast majority of new coverage is not jumping to sensationalize these protests and neither should Wikipedia editors. Revert Racism.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1. No need for NPA

2. How is it racist to assert that RS SOURCED additions (with pictorial evidence) is not a riot? There are pictures of the violence in many sources.

Also NPA is grounds for action...don't accuse other editors. But im not one to complain, I am engaging you in discussion. and please don't revert till consensus. If you prefer you can alSO ask for WP:30.Lihaas (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth there are plenty of "white" riots on Wikipedia. Some of which have nothing to do with The Clash. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 03:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

wHat on earth are you talking about?Lihaas (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The introduction is a review of the article. If it is going to continue to have "riots" placed in it twice then it certainly needs some citation.Lihaas has stated up until now that based on the description of events he can use the word riots. That is not my understanding of how NPOV works on Wikipedia. We don't add contentious material unless it is well cited. If we can't come to an agreement then I suggest we agree to a 3rd party's opinion.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Coming from a background of political activism, I don't see how "riot" is a POV word. it is certainly not a negative one in my view. Stamboliyski (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Stamboliyski, the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article. The word riot does not appear anywhere else in this article therefore (per the definition of summary) riot is not an accurate summary of the article. Also, I don't think setting fire to several government buildings is a riot and even if I did that shouldn't make any difference since Wikipedia is supposed to use reliable sources and not our own interpretations in order to define events. Sensationalizing an event like this by calling it a riot without overwhelming evidence in the form of multiple reliable sources is what I object to.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

After coming here to accuse people of alleged racism (according to your POV) you have not bothered to return here but simply edit warred to your version. The onus now lies on you to seek consensus FIRST through discussion.

Every single word in wikipdia does not need to have a citation. What then is a protest that turns violent? an uprising? Wheres the sensationalism because you don't like the word? As you've shown above you are inseting your POV on accusation of so-called racism.

Riot says "Riots typically involve vandalism and the destruction of property, public or private"Lihaas (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"Riot" seems fine to me. It's not being used as a slur. It's just a plain description of what happened. Everyking (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

pre-30th

There needs more of the initial porotests as right now we have nothing beyond it...and there were protests beyond the capital.Lihaas (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Start date

Sources are asserting 3 days old = 28 start date. Per AGF [1][2]

The Guardian source in my edit summary states since the 21st, when the constitutional change was announced (that's the one with refname "guard2"). Given that the Guardian was used as the source for a 28th start date, there is simply no justification in using the Guardian as an RS for that detail at this point. It is an otherwise reliable source, but cannot be considered authoritative on this specific point given the internal inconsistency - it may very well be a mistake one way or the other, but on something that is not cut-and-dry a mistake is enough to look elsewhere. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 03:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The article section has 28

but fair enough to wait a bit while its too hot right now(Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)).

Note- I minor tweaked it to add "late"...don't things that's udner disputeLihaas (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone else pchange it, User:WaitingForConnection.Lihaas (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Move

2014 Burkinabé uprising as the Burkina Faso page had multiple demonyms that are all excepted (and the election pages use this one), kindly discuss moves. In the interim, stay with the original, as is standard dispute practice.

Admin please move it back.Lihaas (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back to "Burkinabé" in line with most other Burkina Faso-related articles. I suggest if anyone disagrees with the original title, an RM is needed. Cheers, Number 57 09:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough.(Lihaas (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)).

Burkinabè or Burkinabé?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2011_Burkinab%C3%A8_protests has one, this page the other.

No idea what youre getting at. but by precedence WP uses the latter.Lihaas (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Revolution

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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Hi It is a revolution because the President resigned after protests. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

1. that is not a revolution (romainian pm resigned due to protests 2-3 years ago and it aint a revolution_)

2. revolutions needs institutional change not a day of havoc with a mere title changing hands

3. no sources are yet calling it so (except hyper-partisans involved in the battle). Need neutral NPOV sources.

Sub pioint 3. proper noun is more dubiousLihaas (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan and Lihaas: It is a revolution such as 2011 Egyptian revolution or 2014 Ukrainian revolution. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nom, WP does not create news out of thin air. You need sources and such as I mentioned. Otherwise it is OR

Incidentally, why aren't protests that oursted the premier in Romania caller a revolution then? Just 2 years ago (or so)Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan and Lihaas:In Romania, the PM resigned, not the President. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya? so a government official did. no definition of revolution differentiates between which leader of government resigns.Lihaas (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also WP:Canvassing is not going to get your way through, its even ground for a block sometimes.Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongly support move: However I don't think it needs a date, it should be just Burkinabé Revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WHY? you cant do so because of your personal preference. WP does not create news. It needs RS.Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was only a recommendation. I wasn't going to change it myself. However, this is clearly a revolution. It's a popular uprising that led to the overthrow of the government. That's what a revolution is. Charles Essie (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. I am not blaming you. Just saying with rationale we can discuss it.

That's not. a revolution needs institutional change because Romania also led to that. (not even the 89 one). popular protests have led to the falling of many governments (Bolivia under goni too + there were also social movements that led to the ends of both Allende and Pinochet. Argetina too, I imagine, after the dirty war against the generals (but im not too sure about that)). None of those are called revolutions. Plus no sources are indicating such, hence we cant make news up. That would be synthesis.

Further per date, Campaore's predecessor also came in trhough a revolution, if you must.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wait. This might be described, by neutral sources, as a revolution in time, but they aren't widely doing so at this stage. And with good reason, as revolution is generally applied to events which successfully bring about radical change. While this looks like it could end up that way, the departure of Campaore alone is no guarantee that there will be radical change – currently an army officer is head of state, and it's unclear whether that will ultimately be a temporary phenomenum until a free and fair election can take place, or something that will become the norm.

  That's all a side issue though. At the moment there isn't a settled term used among uninvolved sources, and in the absence of a settled term "uprising" seems appropriate – the people rose up against the president, he resigned, but the longer term outcome is not clear. Certainly better than coup, which this page was previously titled as. For what it's worth I'm coming around to the view that this should be described as a revolution, but to do so before the majority of sources do so would not be in line with NPOV. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

agreed, well said. fair enough to wait.Lihaas (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Updater: France24 and Al Jazeera are also calling it an uprising alone (although the latter were questioning). So far only the partisans on the ground are claiming it a revoluition, for all the political bluster. Still seeming POV to go there.Lihaas (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Euronews called it a revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

iTS STILL ongoing though./...Lihaas (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Senegal

The following discussion 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.

---

Now it is clear that Compaore has not fled to Senegal. If he flees, it seems that he flees to Ghana, not Senegal. So the information on the front Wikipedia page is clearly WRONG! Can somebody fix it?Olegwiki (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a source, then absolutely. What you cited claimed a convoy presumed to be carrying him. The original source said an official in Dakar said hes there. If there is a source saying he is now in Ghana then please provide it.Lihaas (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the source about Dakar? There is a link [3] but actualy there is nothing about Dakar there. Morover, it is yesterday information and the today BBC article does not say anything about Dakar!Olegwiki (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC is not god. Other sources have said so. 2 ive read.

Also what is your counter assertion source?

hmmm...it seems the relevant source in the article got mistagged. Good spot on that.Lihaas (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Now, at least, it seems I have found the source about Dakar. Apparently, it is [4]. There is a twit "Authorities at Dakar airport have also apparently confirmed that Compaoré arrived in Senegal this afternoon after fleeing the country" but then there is an update:"Earlier reports that Compaoré had fled the country now seem false, after the president makes an announcement on a local FM frequency."Olegwiki (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Okey the page got updated. But CSM are also claiming such reports. Ill tweak it to assert reports instead of fact for now?Lihaas (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Compaoré's whereabouts is unclear at the moment. So let's do not mention it at all, just enough that he has resigned!Olegwiki (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ive removed that from the infobox and lead, with a brief mention of the confusion in the article

Also your sectioning changes need discussion. It taked out the whole reporse section.Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The most obvious sections are just chronological (dates). What is "responce" anyway? Ultimatly, the president's resignation is the responce to the protests!Olegwiki (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not just a timeline for presentation (a la all those arab spring articles that are not popular even at ITN). see the 2012 Guinea-Bissau coup artcle that is GA. Response is not the protests, it is the reaction, which, as you say, the resignation is a response and not the protest.

BTW- ive maintained your 31 October section as its probably better than mine since it ended today itself.Lihaas (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• If we don't get ironclad confirmation that he is in Senegal, please do not reinstate that information per WP:BLP. Adding Senegal to the text and the infobox and then removing it and then readding it, is clearly not the way to go for obvious, I hope, reasons. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you even following the discussions? Were well ahea d of you and have removed. Lihaas (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Adding Senegal to the text and the infobox and then removing it and then readding it, Let me make it clear for you then. This back and forth did not have to happen. I removed Senegal before from the text and the caption but then you readded it three times. Apart from edit-warring it makes Wikipedia editors look sloppy to the outside world. All this time that Senegal was on the article and readers saw it, damaged the credibility of the project. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And you were not "well ahead of me" because you left Senegal in the caption and I just removed it. For the second time I might add. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If you followed the dfiscussion you can trace we were figuring out the sources asserting whaere he may be. You will then note hthat BEFORE you came in mentioned this we had ALREADY removed Senegal from the infobox AND the lead and re-worded the prose to clarify the cpnfusion. The content on the caption was off both our radars.

If you followed the dfiscussion you can trace we were figuring out the sources asserting whaere he may be. That's irrelevant. You should not have added Senegal again into the article until you made absolutely sure that he did go to Senegal. That's just due editorial diligence. But instead you readded Senegal three different times after it was removed by two different editors. Apart from careless editing this is edit-warring. Conclusion: Controversial statements should not be added during a rapidly changing event and edit-warring them into the article, just to discover that it was the wrong information which was being added, is not good editorial practice. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors are not god. Neither one of us discussing the matter botheres about it. You did not get involved in the discussion ascertaining fact. We 2 did. Because the source first DID say so (2), which was later changed. You went about unilaterally doing it. Stop this he-said-she-said. Its...

Anyways

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

Trasnlations please?

French and Russian needed in the international relations/reactionssection please?Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian seems done. French needs checking.Lihaas (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

François

Lihaas, I'd really appreciate if you could stop undoing the edit on Compaoré's brother's name. The man's name is François. "François Compaoré" yields 180 000 results on google, "Frances Compaoré" only 80, several of which lead either to copies of this very page or unrelated subjects. "Francis Compaoré" gives 335 results, for the record. Sources for "François" include international media like BBC and Radio France Internationale, regional media like Nigerian Tribune, domestic media like Le Faso, and many books on the subject of Burkina Faso. Stamboliyski (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Im listing it to the cited source. You cant have hypocrisy here and in Guinea-Buissau's coup article.

Also not WP:Googlehits is not a barometer.Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not, but when linked to credible sources I think it shows something. What more than countless sources and the entire internet do you want to accept the correct variant of his name? (Might I ask what this whole Guinea-Bissau deal is about? No offense, but I have no idea what you're refering to.) Stamboliyski (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Burkinabè not Burkinabé

In the constitution of Burkina Faso, residents are called Burkinabè.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 Burkinabé uprising. 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/20141101215307/http://www.presstv.in/detail/2014/11/01/384353/2nd-burkinese-cmdr-claims-presidency/ to http://www.presstv.in/detail/2014/11/01/384353/2nd-burkinese-cmdr-claims-presidency/

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) 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Cars burn at a hotel in Ouagadougou, Oct. 30, 2014.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Isaac Zida after he was named president at the military headquarters in Ouagadougou, Nov. 1, 2014.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 Burkinabé coup d'état which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)