::"Coup" can be used in the title of an article about an event when that event can be unambigiously and uncontroversially defined as a coup. In Mauritania last year, for example, there was clearly a coup: the military seized power, detained the president, and set up a military junta. In this case, the events fall in a gray area between a successful "people's power" movement to force a government's resignation and a coup. Obviously, people sympathetic to Rajoelina would tend to characterize it as the former and people sympathetic to Ravalomanana would tend to characterize it as the latter. What actually happened is that popular protests created a climate of severe disorder, leading the military to facilitate the transfer of power to Rajoelina in order to resolve the situation. Ravalomanana resigned because his situation had become untenable, but he was not ousted in the way typically associated with a coup; he transferred power to the military, and the military promptly transferred power to Rajoelina. Was Ravalomanana's act of transferring power to the military in fact a coup?