# Talk:2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état

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 / 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. [1] 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)).

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mohamed CJ (talk · contribs) 10:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Other editors are welcome to give comments. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


### Initial comments
Copyright violations
I've spotted a number of copyright violations (close paraphrasing): link (report), link (report), link (report), link (report), link (report), link (report). Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That toolserver check is a little dodgy (ive had it before), but im getting to it after the below.Lihaas (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Just reviewed the "duplication detector" and its, well, horrid. I made some changes nonetheless.
The secnd one has nothing to change. and the third. and the fifth.
 Done(Lihaas (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)).
I've asked for an independent expert opinion about this. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
This source needs a bit of work, both in terms of close paraphrasing and verifiability - for example, it is used to cite "justice", but that word doesn't seem to appear in the source. This source is also a bit close for comfort. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Argghh, Al Jazeera changes content at the same page!Found a new one.
Not sure whats wrong there, i just reworded recently. Large parts are in quotes too.(Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)).
Dead and Google links
Dead links need replacing and Google links need archiving as they become dead links after a while. WP:DEADREF explains how to find alternatives for dead links. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 In progress Where did you check the deadlinks?Lihaas (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
But how do you archvie google links? They do stay for a long time. Its Yahoo that dies off soon.Lihaas (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
This report shows five dead links (some of them are already tagged as dead links in article). You can archive links using Webcitation website. I've archived two for you [2] (archive) and [3]  (archive). It's not a must, but pre-emptive archiving is better. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done(Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)).
This one is dead too. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
doingdoneLihaas (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Lead
Currently it is only one paragraph. Per WP:LEAD, it should be two or three paragraphs as the prose of the article currently is over 15,000 characters (16374). Also it should contain no references at all (except for direct quotations) or be fully referenced (the first is preferable). Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 DoneLihaas (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It was improved, however the current revision shows just one paragraph in the lead with one citation (not direct quote). Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Per "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points"/. The current incarnation does so without going into oo much detail. Per citations, i dont believe theres anything controversial to replicate a ref in the lead from the article. Otherwise, done.(Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)).
General
Paragraphs should be 3 to 6 lines long. They can be shorter than 3 only if you're trying to emphasize a point. There are some clarify tags that need answering. There is one Dablink: Junta. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 DoneLihaas (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I can still spot lengthy paragraphs at International reactions and Coup d'etat sections. Some clarify tags such as  and  are still there. Dablink Junta still not specified to an article. Is it Military junta? As for the bulleted lists (in reactions section), I suggest (not a must for GA) converting them to prose; some of them are really short (less than a line). Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. Reactions lists are generally in such format to identify quickly. Though i could see russia canada, senegal and nigeria being out together, ecet that its then UNDUE to not indetify them neutrally the same way as others. Not sure.(Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)).
Convert all of them to prose. They currently look ugly. Clarify tags still there too. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
But thats not rquired, im a little cocnerned over the consistency factor as this enhances readability/quick overview of hwho commented. Will find clarify details shorty.Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


### Detailed review
Will provide detailed review when above problems are resolved. Keeping it on hold for one week or until they're addressed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead
The first paragraph can be better re-worded such as: "On 12 April 2012, a coup d'état in Guinea-Bissau was staged by.. after the first round.. and two weeks before". Also no need for "just over" before two weeks. You could also tell us who these persons are and give some background info.
done. the info on the persons already says they were running off in the election though(Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)).
If the info is mentioned (and cited) in the body of the article, then there is no need for it to be cited in the lead section.
moved ref to article an d left ref name in lead?Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"which took over running the country" to "which ran the country".
doneLihaas (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"one of the reasons for the coup was the incumbent civilian administrations external call for support from Angola" no need for s after administration and no need for external. Also the type of help is not specified (reform the military) and the reason is given as "one of the reasons" where as it should be the main reason mentioned in the lead.
Done, and used apopstophe sLihaas (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"Following international condemnation and the sanctions against the leaders" no need for "the" (both).
doneLihaas (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The lead can be expanded a bit to include some parts of Background and Coup d'etat.
doneLihaas (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


### 2nd Opinion
Are you still looking for a 2nd opinion? Does it just concern the possible copyright violations? AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well basically I can't make it through the review. It is supposed to take two weeks max, but since college started I became very busy so I though I wouldn't be able to make it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no time limit on reviewing. I can help if you have a specific question or finish the review for you if you wish. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would finish the review. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Have had a read through the background and I am afraid I got very little understanding out of it. Since this is the background I would have hoped it would supply some reasoning why there was a coup, but much of it seems unrelated to Guinea-Bissau or it is assuming the audience already knows some information.

The country has been prone to instability[2] because of its location as a conduit for drug shipments from Latin America to Europe,[3] with allegation that government ministers and military personnel are bribed to keep silent, arguably making the country a narcostate Grammar in this sentence is off and who is arguing this, it sounds like us, a conduit is not really a location.
The word however is overused. I don't for instance understand why it is used in regards to Ban Ki-moon, of course he was going to ask for a peaceful election.
Just before the attack Ialá Embaló, who claimed to have ties with members of his ethnic group who are allegedly the largest ethnicity in the military, warned of "consequences" if there was campaigning for the second round of the election - what ethnic group is this?
Campaigning was also due to start on 13 April for the second round. How does this fit in. Why "also"?
Days before the coup, fellow Lusophone country Angola announced its forces would be ending the two-year old MISSANG mission to modernise the military,[8] after a failed attempt by the E.U Why is Angola important? What did the EU fail to do? What is a MISSANG mission?
State-owned ANGOP said that the troops were sent in March 2011 in accordance with a bilateral military agreement to reform the armed forces. Troops sent where?
Carlos Gomes Júnior has also been unpopular with the army for his attempts to reform the institution. Who is Carlos Gomes Junior and how does this sentence tie in with the rest of the paragraph?
The same day as the coup, the two Lusophone countries of Angola and Cape Verde agreed to review their defense cooperation agreements How is this relevant
Some other quick points

The embedded list of quotes from other countries does not help the flow much. The flag images just appear as decoration and don't provide much to the article.
Some tags are present namely who or which and there are probably other instances where they should be added (i.e there were fears of possible violence - who had fears
No comments for a few weeks now so in light of the above I am failing this article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorted most queries. The ethnic group was in the page, but i moved the link up to background. Campaigning was relevant because the coup happened during the process (i just added the lection was disrupted by the events). Angola is important because it was cited as a reason for the coup. MISSANG has a wikilink. Ditto with Cape Verde as the ruling party (PAIGC) was founded as GB and CV and its a similar agreement with the other Lusophone country to reform the military.
Also changed the flags stuff.
Only need to answer the tags. Only one tag leftLihaas (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 09:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There is only 1 tag left and im not sure how to word that. I would venture a guess that its' the Guinea-Bissau_presidential_election,_2012 top 5 candidates other than Gomes Junior, but it may be syhtnesis. Help on re-wording?Lihaas (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
note- This was another set of eyes, but im not sure about the source for it [4]Lihaas (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lihass. Thanks for starting this. One of the reasons I wanted to do a new one as opposed to reopening the closed one is that I have developed my own way of reviewing. It still follows the criteria, it is just set out in a way that helps me keep track of everything. I also wanted to review this from scratch, whereas before I was just providing a comment (well at least initially). I knew nothing about this subject before reading this article (sad but true). It does mean that I can judge whether the article explains the situation well to a layman though, which was my biggest concern when I offered the second opinion. Now what I will do is conduct an initial review based on my first read through and leave comments. I will then judge it against the criteria using one of the tables (sorry don't like the current one here). Hopefully I will have it done in a couple of days. Now I treat this like a collaborative exercise, so if you disagree with one of my points/comments let me know and we can try to come to an agreement. I will not compromise the criteria though. AIRcorn (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh and i will also copy edit as I go. If I introduce any errors please revert me. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Good to have another set of eyes so its easier for the laymen. I thought it was, but then it was to my writing ;)
I made a corection to your edit just now to clarify the point that the 2011 wasnt a coup.
Also i will likely be busy on Friday till Thursday.Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


### Comment
#### Background
Despite a peaceful campaign, there were fears of possible violence or a coup d'état if the army did not approve of the winner. Is there more information on this. If it was peaceful what lead to there being fears of violence. How widespread were the fears? If the UN was involved I would imagine it was worldwide, but it should probably be said.
The fears were on precedence and mostly by the media and external speculation. Added caveat for fears
Just before the attack Ialá Embaló, who claimed to have ties with members of his Balanta ethnic group who are allegedly the largest ethnicity in the military, warned of "consequences" if there was campaigning for the second round of the election. Who is Iala Embalo? Why was there a second round of elections? Is it the normal practice in Guinea-Bissau? Maybe move the last sentence of the paragraph up to explain about the second election. By attack do you mean coup? If so probably better to say that.
Presidential candidate in the election during the runoff (its said i believe). 2nd round is standard on presidential elections in most countries. its also on the requisite linked page. (which was enough i thought) Added notes for why there was a runoff, etc
The last paragraph in the background section doesn't seem to tie in very well. It is hinting that the withdrawal of the troops was a major catalyst for the coup, but doesn't really say why. For examle I am not sure how On 16 April, Guinea-Bissau Defense Minister Jorge Tolentino Araújo was scheduled to arrive in Angola to meet his counterpart Cândido Pereira dos Santos Van-Dúnem and the Army Chief-of-Staff Geraldo Sachipengo Nunda. He was also expected to visit the Higher Warfare School (ESG) and the Higher Technical Military Institute (ISTM). is relavent since it is describing something that was supposed to happen after the coup.
Its background context for the next paragaph.


#### Reasons
I am not sure this is the best heading. It is signalling out a specific reason while the background makes it clear that there are multiple reasons. I think it would fit better merged into the background section. The last few sentences could probably moved down to coup d'etat.
The background is general context in that its prone to instability. Perhaps i can make this a subsection (although this is directly relevant and background is context)? I can move the visit to Angola here, though that is also more context, i think.
I still think it could explain the background a bit better. From what I could gather from reading the section, Angolan troops were in the country, there was an announcement they were going to leave, the Guinea-Bissau military claimed there were plans to attack them, so they launched the coup? I think something is missing.
Pre-emptively is what the sources indicate. Not sure what is missing.
Is my summary above accurate? AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Who is na Walna?
Ah! I moved this section up so this is notw his first mention when it wasnt before. Fixing... Done


#### Coup d'etat
Gomes's house was attacked by grenades. If it was attacked by grenades it seems a little out of date to say it was reportedly under gunfire.
We could change it but i thought itd be borderline synthesis per the sources.
Why not just remove the Gunfire part? It seems minor that there was reportedly gunfire nearby when we have a source that says the house was attacked by grenades. AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Reports also suggested the soldiers ransacked and looted the houses they raided. This also seems redundant with the previous sentence. Maybe change to "other houses they raided"
cool done
Soldiers were reported to be standing guard outside radio and television stations in Bissau, including the state-run television office and the presidential offices This sounds like the presidents offices is a radio or television station?


#### Aftermath and National Unity Government
I tried breaking the first sentence up into three separate ones. You might like to check that it still covers the gist of what you were saying and does not introduce any inaccuracies. Here is the original one
The coup leaders formed the "Military Command" under the leadership of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces General Mamadu Ture Kuruma and put forth conditions for a national unity government the day after the coup after having announced the ouster of Gomes Júnior along with the interim President Raimundo Pereira and the Chief-of-Staff of the Armed Forces General Antonio Indjai who were "under the control of the army," however there were rumours he could be hiding in an embassy and soldiers were said to have been going to every embassy to find him.
Yep, checked it. It s fine.
The detained officials were later released. So does that mean that the did have Indjai? Maybe the previous secton should read "at the time rumours..." to cover this
Article already says Indjai was released Sorted?
The National Union of Workers of Guinea-Bissau, which has a membership of about 8,000 mostly civil servants, called for a general strike the next day. Does this have a citation?
The next available reference. Its overref-fing when there are no intermediary references to something else. Sorted?
'National Assembly speaker Manuel Serifo Nhamadjo, who had previously rejected the office of interim president in April 2012,[38] was again selected as interim president on 11 May 2012' If he rejected the offer then he is not really elected again (although I suppose being "selected" is different).
Yep thats what i meant. He was selected first but rejected, then accepted a second time (other pressures, id imagine). Sorted


#### Reactions
At an ECOWAS summit in Côte d'Ivoire to discuss the Malian crisis,[14] Foreign Minister Mamadu Saliu Djaló Pires called for international support as "the situation is serious. This almost sounds like he is calling for support regarding the Malian coup. Also not sure why this is outside the subheadings?
Clarified both Done
The ECOWAS summit host country's Foreign Minister Daniel Kablan Duncan said that as news came in about the events in Guinea-Bissau the "information indicates to us that there is a coup underway What was the host country for the ECOWAS summit?
Seems like you sorted that. Done
The Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries called an extraordinary meeting to take place in Lisbon on 14 April. Why extraordinary?
General political lingo for meeting that are not scheduled and called as an "emergency" session
The CPLP also condemned the coup and exhorted the UN, AU and ECOWAS to work towards Whats the AU? African union? probably needs t be spelt out the first time it is used.
Done Done
adding that it appeared the junta had taken control of media outlets, as they were off-air and the headquarters of PAIGC and were trying to restrict movement," adding that "we regret that they have chosen to disrupt the democratic process, which already was challenged by the opposition's call to boycott the second round of elections." Don't reaaly understand this and am not sure how to fix it.
it as quote that i dint finish. Ive fixed it now, chck that out.
Couple of issues: think this is too repetitious use of Angola> + Ashton is not the spokesperson, it is HER spokesman that said so also in the smae edit the important info of which resolution was removed.
Didn't see this. Will change them back. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
You bet me to it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


#### Subsequent events
Not sure why there is so much on the Angolan port. Have there been any further updates in the last three months?
In some instance i thought otherwise too,, but the context of the background and due to angola's part in the events (per the reasons cited) this is sort of an "afterword" to the whole thing with continued [unpopular] involvement and renewed conflict with this new government. We could perhaps link somewhere to Angola-Guinea-Bissau relations?
Maybe it can be trimmed a little bit so it doesn't dominate the aftermath so much. Or if there anything further that can be added that will also help. AIRcorn (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


### Second read through
I think we can safely add a short sentence like "Guinea-Bissau has been described as being unstable" to the start of the background. The rest of the paragraph supports that and it would be a better introduction to the section in my opinion.
I moved the sentence about it being an unstable narcostate to the top, with the refs.
I wonder if we can remove some of the reportedly or allegedly's through out the article. Some seem to be relatively minor, although I do agree that we should err on the side of caution. Some places where it may not be needed are:
...of his Balanta ethnic group who are allegedly the largest ethnicity in the military...
The main target was reportedly Gomes Júnior's residence,[20] which was surrounded by troops and gunfire was reported nearby (see below)
...were reportedly in hiding
...who may have been in the custody...
Soldiers were reported to be standing guard outside radio and television stations...
Good to have another set of eyes. i removed/changes some but wasnt sure about the others lest it becomes synthesis. Feel free to change it though.
Still don't like the reasons header, but I now understand why it is there. Maybe something along the lines of justification (but more neutral). Reasoning? Rational? I think rational works best, but will leave it up to you.
Done.
The main target was reportedly Gomes Júnior's residence,[20] which was surrounded by troops and gunfire was reported nearby.[21] Journalists were prevented from approaching the scene.[18] Gomes' house was attacked by grenades. Mentioned it above but will add it here again in case it is missed. Can this section be rearranged slightly so it doesn't go into synthesis, but so it also reads better. Suggest something like "The junta targeted Gomes Júnior's residence. It was surrounded by troops, gunfire was reported nearby, it was attacked with grenades and journalists were prevented from approaching the scene."
Changed this quite a bit.
Much better than what I had AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The United Nations Security Council unanimously voted to "restore constitutional order" in the country and approved Resolution 2048 which sanctions, including issuing travel bans on the diplomatic passports, on five members of the military junta on 18 May This sentence is missing something. Or else "which sanctions" is a stray fragment.
Woops, "which" should have been "with". Better now?
Where does the 200+ numbers come from in the strength part of the infobox? I don't recall reading that in the text.
Hmm, it was from one of the sources, ill look through and add the source there.
2 things:

I change this back as the new version would then require too many commas.
Not too keen on brackets as caveats, is there a better way? but either way
Also will add a few more images of leaders. Perhaps an image to reactions with the quote of the foeign leader?
What did the house do? ;) Presidential candidate Carlos Gomes Júnior, whose house was arrested after his residence was attacked during the coup
The licensing on the images is fine. Just need to fix the caption on Carlos Gomes Juniors photo. As for the brackets I guess we could just remove that part of the sentence. It is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. You could also go back to the original wording I guess and leave out Ivory Coast. It just sounded a bit weird saying the "the Foreign Minister of the host country of ECOWAS" to my ears. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Woops, was going to write "house attacked and arrested" by swapping the original "attarrested and house attacked" i had then forgot to remove.


### Criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
I think this is pretty good and will be a decent addition to the Good Article corp. It is good to see some variation come through and West Africa is definitely underrepresented.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|}pass}
Just a few little things above, but this is pretty much there
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I checked a lot of the references as I went through and they all seemed to be of decent quality and supported what was in the text. If anything I think this overdoes the attribution (something I usually ask for a lot more of in most articles I review)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Defiantly broad. Wouldn't want too much more on the reactions section, but I don't think it is enough to prevent it from being Good.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
As someone completely unfamiliar with the situation it did not ring any alarm bells when it comes to neutrality.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Nothing in the history or talk page to suggest any instability
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The one image is fine. I would not object to the addition of photos of the main participants, but don't think it is necessary for GA status.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Just a few points to address in the second read through above and I will pas this. AIRcorn (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Happy to pass this as a GA standard article. Good luck with the FA nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The NYT had a good follow-up article on the coup this month. It would be good to utilize it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/world/africa/guinea-bissau-after-coup-is-drug-trafficking-haven.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Everyking (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

 DoneLihaas (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)