Talk:2016–2017 Gambian constitutional crisis

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

Stuff to add[edit]

Support from the army chief and also NIgeria had voted to give him asylum IF he stepped down by today.Lihaas (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

There is no constitutional crisis (just a threat of one) as he'd left by deadline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lihaas: He hasn't left, although I see you twice tried to insert an incorrect story saying he had agreed to... Number 57 06:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Mauritania as a Belligerent[edit]

Is Mauritania significant enough in the issue to have to have its own column in the info-box? It seems like the president was only a small part of the negotiations as a "neutral" party. Sputink (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have serious concerns about having this infobox at all, since so far, this really can't be characterized as a military conflict. And while I realize that "26,000+ refugees" under "Casualties and losses", it certainly suggests that that many refugees have died in the conflict! I'm going to consult MILHIST about this. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, I was supersized it existed too but I kinda like it there for now. Sputink (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Cordyceps-Zombie for this edit, that at least makes clear there hasn't been bloodshed. I still think the infobox as a whole is overzealous, but I suppose we can see what develops. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the military conflict has begun, it should have its own article, as pretty much every military conflict does on wikipedia. I have started such an article here at Invasion of the Gambia, since thats what most news sources are calling it now.XavierGreen (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casamance rebel involvement[edit]

--FPSTurkey (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

While the RfC has not been open for the full 30 days customary, there have been no additional comments in nearly two weeks making it unlikely keeping this open for more time would produce additional opinions. A request for non-admin closure has been registered.

By breadth of support 13 editors support a merge and 10 oppose a merge. Argumentation on both sides is largely based on editorial perspective on this event, rather than policy, though a few editors have mentioned WP:TOOSOON as a reason to oppose merge.


As it currently stands, 57% of editors support merge, which is a majority but doesn't constitute the breadth of support that equals a consensus. Further, there is no policy-based argument in support of merger that would help tip the scales. There is no consensus to merge at this time. That said, because there is obviously strong support (short of a consensus) to merge, and this is a somewhat active, current event, it would not necessarily be inappropriate to open a new and fresh merge proposal in the relatively near future. DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I suggest merging the recently created ECOWAS intervention in the Gambia article into this one, as per the set-up for 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This was the first and remains the lead article of the three, ECOWAS intervention in the Gambia and Invasion of the Gambia should be promptly merged into it. GWA88 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest all be merged, with the main article being Invasion of the Gambia, as this is the climax of the events that have taken place. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they should be merged into Invasion of the Gambia, since that is what most media sources are calling it.XavierGreen (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that you'd want to keep the name since you gave the article its title. These events have developed just hours ago and should be moved to the constitutional crisis page. As more information about the events appear and the title "Invasion of the Gambia" solidifies, then we should consider renaming the article. 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, most news sources including many cited here are calling it the Invasion of the Gambia, thus is the proper title per [Name]XavierGreen (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those news sources are just reporting the latest news, so they are focusing on what happened in the last few hours. But the invasion is one development in an ongoing conflict that is mostly internal. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What this page describes is not an ongoing conflict, an invasion is a military conflict, not a contested election. The political and military events are two seperate actions.XavierGreen (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge into this page, with the understanding that it a more conventional shorthand name my solidify as events develop. Fitnr
I agree as well. The invasion is oart of the crisis. Unless there is a lot of information, it is better to keep them under one article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. While the invasion and crisis are clearly interconnected we can discuss them separately, and the Crisis article already has a template saying that "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably". Merging more content into it will make that worse. Further this is a rapidly developing story and it's too early to tell if the subjects will be notable on their own in the end, so its best to keep the pages separate for now. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge. The invasion is just one part of the long term crisis, and both are notable in their own right.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge They're all effectively part of the same crisis. Number 57 14:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon essentially per Amakuru and others. It will be much easier to decide once this is no longer ongoing. Samsara (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While this is true, Samsara, the gist of the WP:TOOSOON argument should be that it's too soon to create fork articles before things have been ascertained. Alas, the damage here is already done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not necessary to ping me if you agree with me. Thanks. Samsara (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - leaning on Amakuru's argument, although Finnusertop has a valid argument. It's too soon to decide on a merger anyway. Let things play out for a bit. · | (talk - contributions) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon per above editor's rational. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly oppose : the invasion is a part of the crisis. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge The intervention should be a separate article, as for example the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen is separate from Yemeni Civil War. Romanov loyalist (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging the ECOWAS article into the Constitutional Crisis article. Agree with Finnusertop that it is too soon to branch out into multiple articles. For example, we now have to add all developing events, such as the announcement tonight, into both articles. If this is all over by tomorrow, then one article makes sense, but maybe something else will happen, hence too soon for separate articles. Chris vLS (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUpport: The 'invasion' is basically over before it began. Does not need a separate article. -Koppapa (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge I think the main problem is that the infobox of this article shows just the invasion of ECOWAS forces and not the main reason for the constitutional crisis. This crisis started between Adama Barrow and Yahya Jammeh over who was the President following the 2016 elections. Thus, the reason why it is stated to be December 9th instead of January 17th. I feel that the infobox on this article should be edited to show the two with their dual claim to leadership. Additionally, let me point out that the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis should not have as much to do with this as the actions as it might seem. This is due to events coming from and after an election. The Russian issue was a dispute between the Russian President and Parliament, which grew into a bloody affair. To conclude, I believe that Romanov loyalist is correct in that a separation of the two articles is the best course of action. This article should cover the crisis in full with only a paragraph on the invasion. That article can detail the sides, the forces, the invasion, etc. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - A constitutional crisis and a foreign military intervention are separate topics. It is better to preserve the article about ECOWAS intervention to offload some content. 2016–2017 Gambian constitutional crisis is already quite long, and we do not need every detail about military actions here. WP:PRESERVE. Ceosad (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - A crisis and a military campaign are 2 distinct and notable events. Yug (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- the crisis was the ongoing issue; the so-called invasion is just a sideline to the constitutional crisis. Also lots of articles make it more difficult for readers to get all the information on the topic they might be looking for. One article can cover the whole issue quite adequately.--Mevagiss (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. They are effectively the same event, and merging encourages a holistic understanding. – Kaihsu (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the invasion was triggered by the crisis thus being a part and consequence of it. Indeed, encourages a holistic understanding. Brandmeistertalk 13:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The conflict is over and will soon become a footnote of history; no need to keep a separate entry. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Amakuru. Everyking (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: I was initially in favour of merging these articles, thinking that the military intervention was just another chapter within the topic of the ongoing crisis. But the more I think about it, I think the constitutional crisis and the ECOWAS intervention are two different topics. As Amakuru, Ceosad and Yug (and XavierGreen and HighFlyingFish) said, these are distinct and notable events. One of them is something that happened inside of the Gambia, for internal reasons. The other is a dramatic multinational external action aimed at resolving the problem (and its resulting flight of the population to neighbouring countries). Mixing those two things into the same article may not be a good idea – one is internal and the other is external – and a multinational military intervention is not a minor or routine thing. Also, someone was already complaining about this article becoming too long, and merging all of the discussion of the military intervention into it will only make it longer. Note that United Nations Security Council Resolution 2337 also has a separate article (and so does the Gambian presidential election of 2016). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; As the military intervention was required to resolve the constitutional crisis, the story needs both elements to be told honestly and fairly. Here the former was the need for the second to occur, as if the transition of power had gone as it should have the need for military intervention would not have even been thought of happening. It also demonstrates the usefulness of international alliances for other countries, in that a group can look out for a member state that has a crisis that must be taken care of before it spirals out of control. This has to be the best example of good neighbors making a situation work out for the citizens of an allied state. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support some argue that the constituional crisis-article is already quite long. Imagine that you want to go to Wikipedia to read about the recent events in the Gambia. I would want to able to read first about why the crisis came up and then about the military intervention in the same article. The ECOWAS-intervention article is not needed, if there had been resistance from Jammeh-loyal forces i think two articles would be needed. But not now. Should we even have the infobox with the belligerents since there was never any real conflict? Did the Jammeh-government even suggest that there would be any conflict? -- LialSE (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would have "ECOWAS intervention" be a separate section in the article while separating "Inauguration of Adama Barrow". Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Crisis is over, it would seem better to merge the two articles to minimize any possible confusion.. lovkal (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Currently, the bulk of the military intervention article is a restatement of material from the constitutional crisis article. Looking toward the future of the constitutional crisis article, we will certainly have a section on the military intervention, and I think the current material that is not shared between the articles would be perfectly appropriate as a section in the constitutional crisis article. It's no more than a few paragraphs, and it seems unlikely that additional noteworthy events related to the intervention will happen at this point. Layzner (Talk) 13:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose,0 the intervention is scheduled to run for at least another six months (to help the new regime stabilise the country), by which time the crisis should be over. So although the crisis triggered the intervention, the intervention and following stabilising mission are a seperate event. Military details (commanders, dispositions, engagements etc} that would be appropriate for the military intervention article would not be appropriate here. So for example in the article Second Liberian Civil War, the UN and ECOWAS intervention together share a small section, however details which would have unbalanced the article can be found in ECOMIL and United Nations Mission in Liberia.--KTo288 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry didnt mean to shout.--KTo288 (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an invasion. It never was. We don't require an article to describe this situation, or any deployment of troops who simply are stationed anywhere in the world. If some notable events occur during the course of the projected mission then an article will probably be made for that.--Mevagiss (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Invasion or not, the subject of the intervention is different from the crisis. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not, it was entirely as a result of the crisis. Number 57 20:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The crisis ended, not the intervention. Panam2014 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 21 January 2017[edit]

Collapsed discussion of a withdrawn requested move
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: Withdrawn. No support for the proposal was expressed, and Psiĥedelisto made some good points when arguing against it. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016–2017 Gambian constitutional crisis → Gambian constitutional crisis – More concise, and still unambiguous. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is: WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions 93.106.151.134 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no Oppose — This event has no unambiguous common name. It's also being called the Gambian election crisis [1] [2] The Gambia has had other coups and crises before, also, I do not believe that "Gambian election crisis" is an unambiguous name which will call to mind this specific event, say, ten years from now. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:32, 22 January 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.

Collapse "Requested move 21 January 2017" for the time being[edit]

Hi, could someone with the required knowledge and rights consider collapsing "Requested move 21 January 2017" for now while the merger discussion is taking place? Perhaps it is just me, but it took me a while to realise that the closed discussion is about the move and not about the merger, especially as it the move discussion is not a sectioon on this page; I do believe that others might also interpret that the merge proposal is closed, while that is not the case. Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention and crisis[edit]

Hi The constitutional crisis ended but the intervention still took place. So the merge haven't made sense. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. The constitutional crisis didn't end until after the military intervention came in and stopped it. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barrow will return in Gambia in 26 January. The intervention will end in 6 months. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

constitutional crisis X intervention[edit]

This article is about the constitutional crisis, but much of the text and the infobox describe foreign intervention.

This is because of this edition of IP 79.45.180.161 which added text copied ipsis litteris from the article ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia.

Therefore, I will remove the sections "Invasion", "Participating forces" and "International response" that were copied from the other article. I will also make changes to the infobox by removing information regarding the intervention. --Fontaine347 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coup[edit]

@NoonIcarus: do you think we should include this in Template:African coups d'état Template:Coup d'état as a self-coup Braganza (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: Hi, many thanks for the ping. Since Jammeh deployed troops to asssert his power, it seems to fit the definition of a self-coup. However, there should be more mentions in the article by reliable sources before its inclusion in the templates. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016–2017_Gambian_constitutional_crisis&oldid=1196725565"