Talk:2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hasty Curation, mis-tagging

I undid the triple tags added by @El cid, el campeador: because none is applicable.

  • 1 OR mistagging.

    The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist

    . BBC, FOX and ABC are more than enough to invalidate this Original Research tag.
  • 2 – {{disputed}} mistagging [by whom?]

You earlier added dbhoax tag, and it was speedily reverted, I wonder how person will call this a hoax. And.......Now you nominated it for deletion????  — Ammarpad (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @Ammarpad: I would love to say that everything you have said isn't wrong, but it is. It is OR/synthesis because no RS has said that it's a coup. It's disputed according to me, that's the whole point of the tag. I dispute it because no RS has said there is a coup. It is crystal because it is talking about a coup that hasn't happened and may not happen.

Can you tell me again how I mis-tagged? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 06:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to answer this, as I have withdrawn the AfD (a move probably would have been the correct choice) and will no longer watch/edit this page, but I stand by every action I took, and how. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 06:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
SORRY, I've already typed this whether you read or not: I don't have anything against you, just you did so many wrongs and I pointed them out. It is natural, you should feel sad. But all men make mistake, what can differentiate us, is what we do after we are shown our mistakes. Either to accept or deny with alibi and technicalities. First, you misapplied "dbhoax" to an article sourced to BBC, FOX and ABC. It was reverted by patrolling admin Mattinbgn, five minutes later you nominated it for deletion, and 1 minute later you added 3 inappropriate tags which I removed and explained why. You now withdraw your nomination which further shows your hasty action caused all this unnecessarily. If you've not curated it, it will have 3 months before being indexed even if it were untrue. Your claim before closing the AfD is also not true. Your claimed:

... "At the time the page was created, there were absolutely no RS' saying that a coup was occurring." diff

This is entirely not true, the last version before your dbhoax misapplication is here. I left it for who ever read this to determine whether your claim above is false or not. Meanwhile, Thanks and bye.  — Ammarpad (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Still an attempt? Or is it successful one now?

Looks like as of Wednesday morning (British time), the military is now in control, according to the BBC. Does that mean it's a coup now? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 08:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Successful, I went ahead and moved the page. Ethanbas (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Speculation

This is all speculation. There is no official word of a coup. This is a hoax. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not a hoax. Clearly something is going on. However it is not at all clear that this is an actual coup d'etat although some speculation in reliable sources suggests this may be the case. The article appears to be making very questionable claims. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
yes, currently the header says "coup" but right underneath there's a statement saying it's not a coup d'état, that there is no attempt to overthrow Mugabe. This should be followed and discussed. --LialSE (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

INFO Box/Result

This needs to be blanked. There is no clear result at the moment and this section of the box reads like a news ticker. See also WP:NOTNEWS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Mugabe's wife

The article documents that Robert Mugabe is under house arrest, but makes no mention of his wife. Is she also under house arrest? Did she flee the country? Was she put in jail? Her status seems very relevant to the article, as she was in part a catalyst for these events. Without encouraging any original research, of course, I believe this information would improve the article. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading a report in the Guardian that she may be out of the country in Namibia on a planned trip, but I don't believe it'd been verified yet by either the military, party, or other media. I'll see if I can find it again. Now reporting that she's in detention with the rest of the family. ansh666 20:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Phrase "over who would succeed"???

The second 'graph of the lead contains the sentence fragment "First Lady Grace Mugabe, backed by the younger G40 faction, over who would succeed the elderly President Mugabe." What does over who would succeed mean? That Grace Mugabe would succeed (without a doubt) Robert Mugabe? That Grace Mugabe might very well succeed Robert Mugabe? That there is a chance that Grace Mugabe would succeed Robert Mugabe? That G40 would/might/possibly succeed Robert Mugabe? Something else entirely? Grammatically, I can't think of anything that permits "over" in this context. Except maybe "over whom" and then what does the rest mean.

Can someone clear this up? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The whole sentence seems pretty clear to me: "between former Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa, who was backed by the army, and First Lady Grace Mugabe, backed by the younger G40 faction, over who would succeed the elderly President Mugabe." It seems clear to me that it is over which of the two would succeed. --DSBennie (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the two dependent clauses into parenthetical clauses, to give them more separation and to make sure that its Mnangagwa and Mugabe that are competing for President, not the army or the G40 faction. Please revert them if you think its too much. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Quotecruft, flagcruft

Please see the reactions section. A good one is written in prose, not bullet points with little flags. A good one summarises the reactions rather than lazily using ctrl-C, ctrl-V to create content. --John (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Question?

The article says that elements of the army believe that only a veteran of the war for independence should lead the country. That war ended thirty seven years ago. Even the youngest fighters would be in their late fifties... and i assume that the army doesn't mean them. Won't Father Time eventually rule out what the elements of the army want? (Should i take this to the Reference Desk?) Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is properly referenced in the article. Mnangagwa is nearly twenty years younger than Mugabe, so nothing illogical about some generals holding the stated view at present (and there is no suggestion that this is relevant beyond the forthcoming round of presidential elections). And in any case your assumption may not be right.Davidships (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2017

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. Closing early because the consensus is clear and this is a high-traffic article at the moment. No prejudice against revisiting when this has become less of a 'breaking news' type story. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état → 2017 Zimbabwe crisis – Reliable sources do not currently refer to this unambiguously as a coup d'état; and it is arguably a Neutral Point of View violation to do so, given that, as the article itself records, "Zimbabwe Defence Forces ... issued a statement saying that it was not a coup d'état".

"Zimbabwe crisis" is being used by the BBC among others and seems more neutral for the moment.

Relatedly, I'd suggest we also stop doing things like adding an end of term of office to Robert Mugabe, until reliable sources unambiguously say this has occurred. (I'd also suggest that this discussion run for much less than 7 days, due to the current nature of the issue and the NPOV problem.) TSP (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Lots of major news sources using "coup". It's a coup, not a "crisis". Ethanbas (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Unambiguously? Which ones? I'm seeing a lot of sources saying "apparent coup", or using 'coup' in speech marks, but not many definitively saying it's definitely one. The African Union says "seems like a coup", but that isn't the same as declaring it is one. "A coup in Zimbabwe? Says who?", says the South Africa Times. Meanwhile, significant people involved are saying it's not a coup; we may not believe them, but I'm not convinced that the WP:NPOV policy is compatible with having an article called "Zimbabwean coup d'état" which says in its second sentence that the major players have said it is not one. It is definitely a crisis, and multiple news organisations are describing it as such, so that seems a safer location until it is definitively clear one way or the other. TSP (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of sources are calling it an unqualified coup.[1][2][3][4] It's true that not all media are saying it is one, but they're not all calling it a crisis either, so what makes you think that's a better choice?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
South Africa Times headline:Mugabe, coup chief meet with smiles and handshakes, "the sole reason the Zimbabwean military is not acknowledging this as a coup d’etat is to avoid triggering the country’s automatic suspension from the African Union and the Southern African Development Community". Jack N. Stock (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support Not clear yet that this is unambiguously a coup d'état. Reliable sources tend to favour crisis. For example, France24 is using "crisis" and points out the military is insisting the events are not a coup. The South African press, amongst the most reliable and free of political meddling in Africa, is mostly not using the term coup (at least yet), with most preferring "crisis". Those sources using coup tend to be opinion pieces and often add a caveat, such as "apparent". AusLondonder (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It looks like a half-coup. The Army seems to be purging the Mugabe regime without actually deposing Mugabe. They are probably trying to prevent Mugabe (who is 93) handing the country over to his wife, Grace Mugabe. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Calling it a coup is tricky since the military saying it is not a coup, but virtually everyone else is (and it's hard to dispute that it is.) Not sure what else you'd call what's going on. South Nashua (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It's like Russia saying they don't have troops in east Ukraine. No matter how many times they say they haven't done something, doesn't change the fact they have actually done it. Buttons0603 (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The military has taken over, which is the definition of a coup. The fact that they are careful to transition slowly in appearance is mere communication. Yug (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support at the least we.cannot aay it is a success but at an attempt so far. Remember Chavez was ousted for 3 days or so and came back, so you cant synthesize its success just yet.Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, obviously. So the military says it's not a coup. Well, they're obviously an unbiased and secondary source, as opposed to these. [5] [6] [7][8] The Turkish Government said they never committed genocide against the Armenians. Guess we better rename Armenian Genocide to Armenian Crisis. Let's take all involved parties word over published sources. *Facepalm* Ribbet32 (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If you'd bothered to read support rationales above, you'd see *plenty* of reliable sources are using crisis. Don't let the facts get in the way of an internet rant, though. AusLondonder (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see most reliable sources currently aren't calling it a coup. I'm just not sure why we are so keen to leap to 'coup' when as far as I can see the overwhelming majority of news organisations aren't. "Probably" isn't my perception of how WP:NPOV works.... TSP (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: BBC is also using the term "army takeover", which would also work. Still not coup, though. TSP (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:DUCK. If it looks like a Coup d'état, sounds like a Coup d'état, it's a Coup d'état. With one being "the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per duck test as mentioned by others above. As I mentioned in a comment above, as with Russia saying they don't have troops on the ground in east Ukraine, no matter how many times they say they haven't, that doesn't change the fact that they have, and everybody knows that they have. Same principle applies here, the perpetrators can say it isn't a coup as much as they like, but it still fits the definition of one. Buttons0603 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it is certainly true that some media sources call these events rather vaguely a crisis, analytical sources tend to describe it as a military coup.--Mossback (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Also agree with using the WP:DUCK test. It looks like a Coup d'état, sounds like a Coup d'état, we should call it a Coup d'état. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clearly a coup. The article and numerous reliable sources give explanations for why they are not calling it a coup because of legal and diplomatic repercussions (e.g. Egypt being kicked out of the AU after the coup by Sisi). If events had not progressed beyond Chiwenga's call for the purges to stop and the ZANU-PF's denouncing of him, then it would be a mere crisis. Once tanks have been used to surround government buildings, troops seizing the state broadcaster and issuing statements about how they were temporarily in control, and leading government figures being put under house arrest, it's a coup. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Fighting for jurisdiction.
  • Comment WP:DUCK says: "The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability and neutral point of view." (Emphasis in original.) I know it looks like a coup. I agree it probably is a coup. My issue is that the core Wikipedia policies say that we don't just write what we think is true; we write what is in reliable sources, we write only what is in reliable sources, and we present the views expressed in those reliable sources neutrally. If we now ignore all of that in favour of "It looks like a coup to me".... I am genuinely, honestly, worried for Wikipedia. TSP (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • You're right about that, though duck test is also a concept that exists outside of WP:DUCK and Wikipedia (indeed, the first person who brought up the duck test linked to the article rather than the project page). But sources do refer to it as a coup, so it is verifiable, non-original research, and neutral, and we can build a WP:CONSENSUS about it being a duck coup. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you, TSP. I think at best the aforementioned "duck test" explains why it's currently named a coup, but doesn't do much to determine if we should continue calling it one. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I think 'crisis' would have been far more appropriate until the details settled into place. There's a good chance coverage will settle on "coup", but I also wouldn't say that it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it's far more prudent to consider the risks of contentious labels over the risk of euphemisms, not to say either applies here. Having said that, I also don't think it's necessarily wrong to call it a "coup" if that's supported, just not ideal. Either scenario runs the risk of a later correction. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME (see [9]) and WP:NPOV. It is also a more apt description of the build up to the events of November 15 and the actual event itself. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Coup d'état is not an apt description because at issue is not the replacement of Mugabe but who is to succeed him after his death. This situation is more akin to a constitutional crisis.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Several editors above linking to WP:DUCK should know better than placing an essay about sockpuppetry ahead of our policies on WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. Pretty basic Wikipedia practice there. AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    The duck test is not a Wikipedia-only concept, and what is or isn't in WP:DUCK (an essay) doesn't mean we can't use the actual real world Duck test. Essentially it's a variant of WP:COMMONSENSE, which applies everywhere and is part of our pillars. And it's not like Wikipedia made this up. We call it a coup because it is one, and vast swathes of the media agree with us.[10][11][12]  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It does not matter that it meets the definition of a coup or that the military does not describe it as such, what matters is WP:COMMONNAME, most media, especially African English media (which still appears to be the bulk of the coverage), seem to still be referring to the events primarily as a coup.--DSBennie (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case, that is a sensible reason to use it, as you say. I'm not sure how best to assess whether it is. For a very rough survey, I went to the Newspaper web rankings for Africa, took the five highest-ranked sites (excluding any that were from a country already looked at, to avoid it being 4/5ths Egypt), and looked at the terminology used in the first Zimbabwe article listed on the current front page of each:
Independent Online (SA): LOOK: Mugabe appears in public for first time since military takeover - "military takeover"
Al-Ahram (Egypt): Zimbabwe's Mugabe resisting army pressure to quit: Senior source - "military coup"
Vanguard (Nigeria): Zimbabwe army confirms detentions of “criminals” in Mugabe’s govt - "crisis in Zimbabwe"
Standard (Kenya): I am still President: Mugabe leaves house arrest since coup - "coup"
Daily Monitor (Uganda): http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/World/President-Mugabe-makes-first-public-appearance-since-army/688340-4191042-xrb05q/index.html President Mugabe makes first public appearance since army takeover - "army takeover"
It looks to me like 'coup' is used in some sources, but it still seems like, as in the UK and US sources I've looked at, many or most are avoiding the term. TSP (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mugabe's not making decisions for the country any more, and someone from the military is. So it's obviously a coup. Letupwasp (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose So those advancing "army takeover" should we use the term too? What is actually "army takeover"? Is it democratic transition? Coup is coup whether the party involved call it that or not and coups are illegal thus there must be these secrecies that are causing all this. But there is no basis for this move because, the action of the army (which is impossible to be undone now) is a coup whatever the end result is  — Ammarpad (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a coup, as evidenced by reliable sources saying that it is all but a coup in name jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As with the AfD discussion, media reporting of events has moved so that this discussion is now moot: BBC: Protesters to hold mass anti-Mugabe rally, reporting "pretence that the military have not staged a coup"; BBC: Zimbabwe latest: How can you tell if a coup is happening?. This now passes the BBC's coup test. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no other new crisis in Zimbabwe, except the long-year economy crisis. This is a coup, maybe it's one of the most peaceful coups in Africa. I don't think it resulted a crisis.--1j1z2 (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2017 (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.

Presidential Succession provisions in Zimbabwean Constitution

See Talk:Constitution_of_Zimbabwe. Alekksandr (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Jumping the gun?

Does anyone else feel like Wikipedia is rather jumping the gun on this issue? The BBC is talking about the 'Zimbabwe Crisis'; referring to President Mugabe; and considering who might be "Zimbabwe's next president?".

Meanwhile, we are talking about the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état; Robert Mugabe's page says his term of office as President ended yesterday; and Emmerson_Mnangagwa's page says he is 'interim president' (although at least, unlike yesterday, he no longer has an 'Acting President' term of office in his infobox).

This all seems rather premature. Most reliable sources don't yet seem to yet definitively say it's a coup, nor that Mugabe has been ousted, nor that Mnangagwa has been installed. Given that Wikipedia is not even supposed to be a news source, it seems doubly wrong that we be *ahead* of the news.

It also seems like a violation of WP:NPOV that we have an article called "2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état" which starts "the Zimbabwe Defence Forces [...] issued a statement saying that it was not a coup d'état".

I agree that what we are reporting seems like the most likely situation; but when major news organisations are still hedging their bets, and major players are specifically declaring that this is not a coup, I don't think we should be firmly declaring that it is.

I'd suggest that this page be moved to a more neutral title like 2017 Zimbabwe Crisis, and things like infoboxes for titles be left well alone until more facts are established. TSP (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but it happens every time, and there is nothing to do about this. The best you can do it to propose a requested move so that it happens in a structural way.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding my two cents here as I was too late to vote on the suggested move to 2017 Zimbabwean Crisis. It appears to me from the sources I've read that the crisis is progressing according to the constitution and laws of Zimbabwe. There has been nothing occurring (yet) to suggest an illegal takeover. Mugabe has been legally dismissed as party leader, and the next step is legal impeachment proceedings if resignation is not forthcoming. A coup d'état is surely a wholly illegal action. It could ultimately turn out that power is taken by force, but.....not yet. Bennycat (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Change 'coup' to 'intervention'?

Should we change 'coup d'etat' to something like 'military intervention' in our title, etc, for reasons ranging from WP:NPOV to WP:BIAS and WP:BLP, given that this bloodless intervention clearly enjoys popular support and the African Union has now recognized Mugabe's removal as a legitimate expression of the will of Zimbabweans and refuses to use the word 'coup' in this context (see citation in opening sentence of Emmerson Mnangagwa article)? In other words this 'coup' lacks the highly negative connotations normally associated with that word.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether they refuse to use the word coup or not is irrelevant, a majority of reliable reporting English sources still appear to refer to the events as a coup, hence, the article should continue to refer to the events as such. --DSBennie (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(Note: This is a continuation of my original point, written before I was aware of the above reply, to which it is not attempting to reply) For comparison, the somewhat similar events in France in 1958 that brought Charles de Gaulle back to power are only described as a 'near-coup' in his bio article, and the actual 'coup' article is titled May 1958 crisis in France even though the lead begins "The May 1958 crisis (or Algiers putsch or the coup of 13 May) ..." and the article is included in the categories Military coups in France and 1950s coups d'état and coup attempts. Of course the army only took over parts of the country (Corsica and Algeria, a part of France at the time), but, a bit like Mugabe, the government resigned, partly to avoid a worse coup, and partly because it lacked popular support.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That page is titled such as it is more commonly referred to in English sources as the May 1958 crisis, in French sources it is mainly referred to as a coup and hence the French wiki page is titled "Coup d'État du 13 mai 1958". Until reliable English sources make use of a term to a greater degree than their use of the word coup, this article should remain as is. --DSBennie (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that "a majority of reliable reporting English sources" are referring to the events as a coup? I don't know how to test that, as "reliable reporting English sources" is a pretty huge field; the BBC, despite what was said above, still largely isn't, and every subset of media that anyone has presented as an example of a group that definitely is using 'coup' didn't seem to check out.
WP:COMMONNAME also isn't the only part of Wikipedia naming policy. "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered..."
It's also worth noting that "2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état" is not actually a common name - Google shows that that specific phrase occurs almost nowhere but on Wikipedia. It is a descriptive title, so I'd have thought should follow the policy for descriptive titles: "[Descriptive titles] are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words." TSP (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful info, TSP. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
It's a pleasure - but bear in mind that I have already fought this one and lost.... TSP (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the warning, TSP. I'm inclined to agree with you that this may all be WP:SNOW, but I sort of feel good about registering my objections for the record anyway, which may or may not bear some fruit in the longer term, either here at a later date, or in some other article (and in either case your above info would presumably come in handy, so thanks again).
  • Anyway, the equivalent article to our May 1958 crisis in France on French Wikipedia is also "Crise de mai 1958", and this is the article to which "Charles de Gaulle#Retour au pouvoir" links, even though that former article in turn links to "Coup d'État du 13 mai 1958". In effect they seem to be keeping the coup article as far as possible confined to the bits that are clearly a coup, while using "crisis" for the wider picture, presumably for reasons quite similar to mine and to the ones mentioned above - and of course we only have one article, which thus necessarily also covers the wider picture, and arguably should thus use a more neutral name, perhaps November 2017 Zimbabwe crisis, or 2017 Zimbabwe leadership change, and so on.
  • Also I haven't checked in years, but when I last looked we were supposed to look for the balance of reliable sources, not the balance of Reliable Sources in English, though I'm not sure that matters too much here, given that, as pointed out above by TSP, sources like the BBC are mostly not saying coup, etc, and that, again as pointed out above by TSP, there are other considerations involved when choosing a suitable name.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
However, having now said my bit, I think I'll now throw in the towel, per WP:SNOW.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It could be changed to 2017 Zimbabwean coup as that is the common term (in English). There are numerous uses of the term "coup" to describe this event in reliable sources. The French phrase seems to have passed from common use, while the word entered the English language hundreds of years ago. Now that Mugabe is out, this event fulfills the definition of the word "coup" to the extent you could use the fall of Mugabe as an example. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, and coup is shorter. But coup d'etat is more specific - coup can have other meanings, such as a gambling coup, a boardroom coup, etc. (In any case I don't think either word is appropriate for the title, as already mentioned above, but for the time being I've thrown in the towel on that one). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I think there could be a case for changing to just coup, I suspect its more commonly used for these sorts of events than the longer coup d'etat. And the chances of someone thinking the overthrow of Mugabe was a gambling or boardroom coup are slim. Such a change would have to be made across all the coup articles though, not just this one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Is it technically a coup, as we have heard from numerous sources that Mugabe resigned voluntarily under threat of impeachment (which is a political process), therefore, can we continue to assume that this situation is a coup, I would suggest that it is more of a 'Constitutional Crisis', therefore I would recommend the article be titled '2017 Zimbabwean Constitutional Crisis', any thoughts?  — GippoHippo 15:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
It was a military coup: tanks on the streets, president under house arrest, people fleeing in fear of their lives... That's not just a "constitutional crisis" as the military action was not constitutional. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with you in the sense that this shares many parallels with that of a coup, it is of my understanding that the military intervened due to Mugabe attempting to put his wife in prime position to be his successor contrary to the constitution of Zimbabwe (If president dies in office, first vice president takes charge, then second etc.) Therefore I would argue that the military intervened in the midst of a constitutional crisis to ensure a smooth transition of power (as we currently know of no deaths due to this 'coup'), furthermore the only man known to have 'fled' for his life was Mr Mnangagwa and that was due to Mugabe sacking him. Sources such as the BBC are well known to exaggerate in crises such as this therefore the term 'coup' does not tell the full story. However if the title is finalised to include the word 'coup', it should be referred to as a 'Coup d'état' since the phrase is borrowed from French (similar to cliché being the same in French and English)  — GippoHippo 17:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Zimbabwean_coup_d%27état/Archive_1&oldid=1088271542"