Talk:2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état

Class
this is certianly not a start class article. Its even better than c as one is unlikely to find something on the events anywhere more sourcesd and clear than this article.Lihaas (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Ialá Embaló
Mohamed Ialá Embaló / Kumba Yalá is, in the "commanders and leaders" section, in the same column of Carlogs gomes Jr., Raimundo Pereira, etc. Are you sure that he is on their side? Most news that I have read seem to put him in the side of the "military command", or at least in a neutral position; his party is negotiating with the junta; perhaps he should be removed from the "commanders and leaders" section, at least until his position becomes more clear?--81.84.110.248 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources indicate he had been arrested by the MC (which is when i added him to the infobox), but im open to other suggestions./sources indicating otherwise.Lihaas (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What are the sources of he being arrested?--194.38.144.2 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget, I already find the source (al-Jazeera)--194.38.144.2 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In regards to this which reads "you're pushing a counter-factual narrative. isn't the PAIGC statement significant? besides, why in the world would an opposition leader be listed on the side of the gov?)" He is not on the side of the government (the government governing would be BOTH sides at different times). As explained in this thread, he was arested by the new governing authorities from the MC, therefore he is opposed to them. PAGIC statement's ARE significant, but the MC's ACTIONS are more significant.Lihaas (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you so sure he is opposed to the coup? Aside from the rather prominent speculation about his involvement, which ought to be discussed in the article, he seems to be cooperating with the junta; he signed an agreement with it shortly after the coup. Was he actually held by the junta? The junta also once claimed that it was holding its own leader, Indjai, but in fact he was pulling the strings all along. It was just smoke and mirrors, a way of deflecting blame. I don't think you can take such statements at face value; we'd need some kind of reporting suggesting an arrest, beyond a mere statement. It seems inconsequential to mention this purported arrest in the infobox; it was certainly not a major effect of the coup, had no ramifications, and may not have even happened. The arrest of Gomes Junior and the deposition of the PAIGC government were the main effects; that's what should be listed. And putting Yala on the side of the PAIGC government seems patently absurd, as he was strongly opposed to the government. You can look at it more narrowly if you like: he was not in a leadership position; he only headed an opposition party and wasn't involved in government, therefore he can't be identified as one of the leaders or commanders of the PAIGC government. Everyking (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that and he was added to the infobox later AFTER hsi arest which was after initial support. Why would this not b e taken at face value when reported by RS, yet his "signing" of an greement should me taken at face value? Thats a disconnect. Likewise the signing may not have even happened...He is not on the SIDE of PAIGC, this is not a civil war. Its against the civilian leadership which was ousted ith a military interim govt (then changed weeks later from intl pressure, liek Mali). Apparently the military was strongly opposed to the civilian leadership to.p. To repeat, this is not a PAGIC govt. vs . military issue. If it was then the military would not have any other measurers againt anyone outside PAIGC (angola too)Lihaas (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of that made no sense to me, but yes, the signing of an agreement seems like it can be taken more or less at face value, and yes, it is a PAIGC government vs. military issue. I don't feel you really responded to my argument above. Can you articulate your view more clearly? Everyking (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not. I feel your understanidng of the situation is different. It is not PAIGC vs. the government. And if the signing of an agreement should be taken at face value then the arrest that happened AFTER should be taken at face value. You cant pick and choose which aspect is more believableLihaas (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What? PAIGC was the ruling party that was deposed in the coup. Kumba Yala opposed the PAIGC government, and, naturally, he held no leadership or command roles in the government or military. Therefore, how can he be listed as a leader or commander of the PAIGC government? This is just one of several points that you appear to be missing. I'm going to remove his name again. Everyking (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He is NOT listed as a leader of PAIGC, He was a civilian leader that was likely to win the election which th emilitary opposed (See reasons). Yu cite a signing with the army as gospel fact to be elieved, yet "is just one of several points that you appear to be missing" that he was arested AFTER the agreement which means they are opposing sides. The Molotoc-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, the Third Reich then violated it, which meant the USSR-Germany were on opposing sides. I think history answers that
 * And, No kindly do not remove it because consensus was established here 6 months ag. Per CCC you need consensus first not a personal view.(Lihaas (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)).

Huh? He was not "likely to win"; in fact, he was so certain to lose that he called for a boycott and warned of unspecified consequences if the second round vote was held. I don't think you understand the subject matter of this article. And what consensus are you talking about? I only see you, plus one anon who seemed to agree with me, and now me. Everyking (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats your popinion, your opinion does not dictate WP. The boycott call, if you read the election page with sources, was over first round fraud. Sorry, but you dont understand the subject. Considering you only just came to the article and have added no content here but just warred. Consensus 4+ months ago was someone who queried and came to see a source. I dont see your consensus but your whim to have it your way. You need consensus to change not your personal fantasy and whim and fancey that youre alone right. Read! if you do youll find the source to what was said. and not your synthesis/personal analysis.
 * What ive said (and the ip) is based on sources, yours is based on personal synthesis/analysis.
 * As proof of your synthesis (and after the souce you said which was BEFORE the arrest (when i added him there)): he prob had a hand in the coup, your '''PROBABLY is personal speculation citing it as gospel fact. vs. I sourced my edit!
 * The crux of the issue, as the UN says (and not yu as your not notable) is the military vs. the civilian government. There is not 1 single souce in the world (RS anyway) that says it is he PAIGC vs. the military
 * Convesely your now vanadalistic edits are based on absolutley nothing, they have no reason and reverted despite this discussion. No! WP IS YOUR VIEW ALONE! nothing supports it.
 * The fact that the first consensus admits "forget i find it already" is agreement that he supports you and disagrees here? in which world???!!(Lihaas (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)).

Point by point:
 * "Me, myself, and I" is not a consensus. If you think one thing, and someone else shows up thinking something different, then you don't have a consensus: you have the parallel opposite of a consensus.
 * 1) Kumba Yala called for a boycott of the second round because he believed he could not win. Logically, if he believed he could win, he would have been happy to participate. It makes no difference, for the purpose of the argument at hand, whether he believed he could not win due to fraud perpetrated by PAIGC or whether he simply believed he did not have sufficient support; I didn't make that distinction because it seemed irrelevant. You said: "He was a civilian leader that was likely to win the election which th emilitary opposed", and that is untrue. He clearly wasn't likely to win; in fact, it was impossible for him to win, because he called on his supporters to boycott! Furthermore, it appears you are saying that the military opposed Kumba Yala winning the vote and launched the coup for that reason. In fact, it was Carlos Gomes Junior who was certain to win, and the military coup prevented his victory. I said you didn't understand the subject matter because you seemed to have such basic misunderstandings of the origins of the coup.
 * 2) You have never explained why the purported arrest of Kumba Yala is an important point, worthy of mention in the infobox. In fact, it received virtually no attention from any sources, and Kumba Yala appears to have resumed his political activities shortly thereafter. If he was held by the army, that obviously had no ramifications at all and was inconsequential. On the other hand, the arrest of Gomes Junior and the interim president were very consequential: they were the focus of international and regional outrage, they disrupted a political process and changed the governing authorities of the country, and they were well-covered by the press. Can you explain to me why the summary point should not simply mention the arrests of those two people, without confusing the matter by introducing a third person whose arrest had no consequence?
 * 3) Kumba Yala was not a "commander or leader" in the PAIGC government, despite your insistence on listing him as such. In fact, he was the opposite: he was the main opposition leader.
 * 4) There is no meaningful distinction between "civilian government" and "PAIGC government", because PAIGC was running the government. They are just two different ways of saying the same thing. Why is this distinction important to you? Kumba Yala was not part of the "civilian government"; he was opposed to that government, because it was run by his political opponents.
 * 5) I find much of what you say to be different to understand. Can you please proofread what you write? Shrill rhetoric, such as accusations of vandalism, is also unhelpful. Everyking (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not based on your personal opinion (stupidly per IDONTLIEK IT) familiaraise yourself first. You dget the consensus then you change. Without reason reverts and efdit wars are vandalism. Your an admin is a disgrae to WP. Admins dotn waar because they want to dismiss info!
 * Per BRD consensus is BEFORE your change, NOT after. Instead of accusing OWNERSHIP you can get consensus where is exists above.
 * '''Let's see whos been productive and aware of the events in this article, you who wars in your personal opinion and ignores sources, or someone who has followed (AT THE TIME) and added 90% to this article
 * WP:DICK???'''
 * Consensus CAN change, but yu realise it will not be your way. You learn to discuss first and not war without reason per IDONTLIKEIT!(Lihaas (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)).

Please respond to what I wrote, calmly, and point by point. Everyking (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You learn to DISCUSS first instead of warring to what you like and dismissing other sources. There were 2 people here who agreed to ialo's placement. (thats consensus when theres no\ disagreement) you then come along months later and want to change, per CCC, you have the right but have to seek consensus through discussion FIRSTA not reverting and accusing others of misunderstanding one notion. you want to dismiss a source and only include what you said on your personal opinion of it being party vs. military, which is not what notable outlets like the UN say (civilian vs. military)
 * Then you cite "probably" to synthesise (see abve) and your opinion is supposed to be god's word.
 * Embalo called for a boycott because he thought hes not going to win? Wheres the citation for that? thats your on personal view. He was a civlian leader. As such you seem to have more than a basic misunderstanding of the coup. The reasons CITED are due to interference from angola and fear of civilian governments outdoing the military not fear of junior vs. embalo. Hence the UN called for restoration of civilian rule, not junior (or embalo), either side of which would "probably" avert the constitutional crisis from the cout d'etat that the page title is.
 * The focus of international outage (as viewed by sources and not your view) was the loss of civilian rule. Further sources do mention he was arrested so that puts him against the military. He was released yes, but so are others. Theyre not still under arrest. Would need a cite for each's release before you cite your personal "logic" as the final word
 * Again, you cant seem/want to comprehend the matter. When did i see he was a leader in the PAIGC government? Conversely i said it is not about PAIGC but civilian government. You will in fact see the mention of "civilian government" in the infobox that you conveniently dismiss as it doesnt fit your understanding of the events.
 * The political process(election as internationally recognised was that of civilian government, not a military institution. Further embalo has had civilian representation so he certainly has that side of it. Civilian government is not a party affair. Youre going to say in other countries the civilian government is the voice of the party?
 * Further please note the harassment of the election commissioner during the ongoing election process. The commission is not part of PAIGC, so fail to see how junior's the sole combatant. Reasons also cites unease over te election (in line with concern of civilian opposition to the miltiary) and not the result (hence the annulled election and not appointment of embalo). To follow your suggestions (and personal view) embalo's support for the military would go in line with his call for boycott/rejection of the election. Hardly support for someone that put him under arrest.
 * conclusion the conflict is a coup d'etat, which is by defnition military vs. civilian, and said as much by the international concern CITED on the page. Its not PAIGC vs. everyone else. See then the CITED reasons in the rationale section
 * also per your last comment, you accuse others of misunderstanding your notion and dismiss other sources that dont fit your view. Yet thats conducive to discussion? then again accuse me of being unconstructive when you see the first positions of cited theory you dismissed outright (even tough it was a more recent update)(Lihaas (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)).

OK, there's an easy way for you to get your way. Just show me a source stating that Kumba Yala was a leader in the civilian government, and you can include him under the government's "commanders and leaders". Until then, no. Everyking (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the title to also include the wider administration and the election commission.
 * He is a leader, he is part of the civilian adminisration running in the recognised election (and for good measure, has also been part of government) and is opposed to/by the junta.
 * Key being: "military stepped in, arrested both candidates". IE- Military vs. civil democratic political and international recognised administration.
 * Come to think f it...should add the lection commissoner too as thats what the prime motive was..
 * At any rate, your "no" is not a discussion and neither are any dikstats.(Lihaas (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).

Um, no, he was not part of the civilian administration. If you want it in the infobox, find a source saying that he was part of the government at the time of the coup. You can't include uncited statements that have been challenged by another editor. Everyking (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm, you removed the fact that he was arrested, which was blatantly false as his arrest is cited on this page.
 * Further, he was part of the civil democratic/political process, which is the cited by the UN as opposed to the military coup. Hence opposed by the military which is the other side. Please provide refs to show he sided with the militaryLihaas (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A process cannot be opposed to anything, because processes have no will of their own. Find a source saying that he was part of the government at the time of the coup, and then you can categorize him as such. You can't include uncited statements that have been challenged by another editor. Everyking (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. You get consensus before reverting
 * 2. A source already says he was arrested y the coup pleaders (which you removed from the box without justifcation and falsely). He is thus OPPOSED to the coup leaders which is what the 1 vs. 2 in the infobox says. Find a source that shows hes with them to emove it. You can't make up you r own rules My statement is cited and yu contravened in your own personal interpretation and there is source in the history that you removed his arest from the infobox to suit your worldview.Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You are adding uncited material to the article, and I don't need any consensus to remove such things. Please provide a source before restoring the content again. Everyking (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have any issue with what is discussed then provide your points. You have not replied to what I said in regards to your personal speculation that Embalo possibly had a hand in the coup. That is not mentioned ANYWHERE except in what you personally stated here. (see above_) That is UNSOURCED.
 * As the article states the Military Command was holding Embalo. That means he was arrested. He did not have freedom of movement. (arrest: "seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty")
 * I've tried to make a compromise (you've not tried anything except to war till you get your perspective/analysis listed). Do try to offer something instread of warring.(Lihaas (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).