Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:34, 19 September 2008 [1].

1964 Gabon coup d'état[edit]

Nominator(s): --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed]


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is the most comprehensive account of a little-known coup in a little-known country called Gabon. It's hard to imagine that this article didn't even exist until two days ago and is now up for FAC. This article is short at only 20kb but remember, African sources are hard to come by. Thanks to User:Nishkid64 for providing a number of these sources to me! --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current refs 10, 29, 34, and 46 are lacking a last access date.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdates added for ref 29, 34, 46. Ref 10 converted to Harvard-style ref. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until sourcing and comprehensiveness issues are resolved Support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)-Well referenced (there's a inline citation for every sentence except in the lead), most prose problems have been fixed, and it seems comprehensive. Just a couple of things:

  • "M'ba commented on a 1961 visit to France that "[a]ll Gabonese have two fatherlands: France and Gabon", and Europeans enjoyed particularly friendly treatment under the M'ba regime." Shouldn't "on" be during?
  • "Instructions were given to transfer M'ba to Njolé, Aubame's electoral stronghold." Who gave the instructions?
  • "'The D-Day has arrived, the injustices have exceeded any limit, these people have patience, but only so much,' he said. 'The end has come.'[24][21]" Inline citations should be in numerical order.
  • "Three years later, M'ba was diagnosed with cancer, and died on 28 November 1967." I know you like date wikilinking. I don't, but that's not the problem here. I followed the month/date and year links and found no mention of M'ba's death in either article. You might as well put it in, especially since the dates are linked.

Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As explained before The Bald One White cat 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thorough referencing is of course a must for a FA, but I think that the inline cites after nearly every sentence reduce readability and break the flow of reading for the vast majority of readers who will read, rather than fact-check, this article. Is it possible to unify some of the Biteghe cites for example? henrik•talk 06:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 54 references for an article of such length isn't an extraordinarily large number. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That wasn't it. He said it like this:
      • Sentence one.<ref name="foo">Foo</ref> Sentence two.<ref name="foo"/>
      • I have removed all I noticed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'm poking around looking for 1(b)-related issues. May take a couple days. Meanwhile:
    • This sentence struck me as being odd: ""As members of opposing parties, M'ba's chief opponent had been Jean-Hilaire Aubame" Plural/singular confusion? Or are you saying that Aubame and M'ba were members of opposing parties (in which case the sentence should be about both of them).
      • Changed to: "M'ba's chief political opponent had been Jean-Hilaire Aubame, who once was M'ba's protégé and his half-brother's foster son.[11] Aubame, a member of the left-wing opposition party..." --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in general, people tend to play loose with the terms "right wing" and "left wing". I need to see some justification, some examples of their beliefs/policies, etc.
    • Why does the article contradict itself, saying at one point that Aubaume was US-backed, and later that he wasn't? Beware of the high possibility of POV-ness of French sources on this question...
      • "until the presidency was given to the United States-supported Aubame." This is to say, the US was fonder of Aubame than M'ba, but did not actually participate in the coup. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation cleanup needed:

endashes on page ranges and problems with p. pp. on page numbers:
^ a b Garrison, Lloyd (March 6, 1964). "Gabonese Capital Tense After Riots", The New York Times, pp. p. 9.
Fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^ Garrison, Lloyd (March 10, 1964), "Gunmen in Gabon Rake U.S. Mission", The New York Times: pp. 1-5
Fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^ Gabon Chief Clears U.S. Role in Plot, Associated Press, March 16, 1964, pp. p. 16
Fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUNC, logical quotation, check needed:

his arrest "ballooned him to heroic proportions in the eyes of the aroused public."
I don't see what the problem is. Please elaborate. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still mixing the citation template with the cite xxx family of templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern - I see "French" for sources, but I also see English. Who is the translator? For instance, this sentence (M'ba acknowledged his defeat in a radio broadcast, in accordance with orders from his captors. "The D-Day has arrived, the injustices have exceeded any limit, these people have patience, but only so much," he said. "The end has come.") is linked to "Biteghe 1990, p. 62" and "Le J jour est arrivé, les injustices ont dépassé la mesure, ce peuple est patient, mais sa patience a des limites... il est arrivé à bout.". But where is the translator? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no translator. Nishkid and I did it ourselves. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, if you see this - what is the proper way to deal with user translations? Is there any acknowledgment needed? Its been a few months since I remember this issue coming up. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the old text at WP:V (that came up during the Vargas Llosa FAC) has since been removed. The current policy is at WP:VUE. I was more concerned at Vargas Llosa because of the BLP aspects. As long as VUE is covered, unless the translation is challenged, it should be OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, when I responded to you, I assumed the translations were made from the original sources per WP:V; other concerns have been raised that the translation was directly from the French wiki article, which would not conform with WP:V, as Wiki is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't track down an original source. Nothing online. I can read and translate French, but I need a physical source to confirm. The French are calling him "Mba" not "M'ba". The French page. It seems that the quote was from the French page's quote, and that it was translated from there. Can we AGF transwiki and believe that the original quote was correct? I don't know. Here is more information. The only problem I see is they say "jour J" and en.wiki says "J jour". Slight problems I see with the translation of (The D-Day has arrived, the injustices have exceeded any limit, these people have patience, but only so much," he said. "The end has come.) Is 1) "D-Day" is not be J jour but jour J and the French wiki has the correct quote; regardless, thats present tense, not past, so it "has arrived" is incorrect, this should be "is here"; 2) "any limit" the word is "measure" not limit, and there is no "any"; tit should be the injustices surpass measurement. 3) "the injustices have exceeded any limit" is actually "ce peuple est patient" should be "the people are patient" not the people have patience"" 4) "but only so much" is really off; it should be "but their patient has limits" Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per first FAC. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as last time. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (struck pending sourcing issues - Giggy (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. A fascinating article about an important piece of history. Very well-cited, and it was a good read, quite clear and good flow. I did notice a deletion discussion on Wikimedia Commons regarding one of the 3 free-use images used in the article, but that looks like it may result in the image being kept. In any event the image on Commons will either be kept or deleted there, but that does not affect the quality of this article. Great work. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. - Change to weak support pending resolution of the sourcing issues below. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still very much leaning Oppose. I need to set up a list of facts omitted.. which appears to be a substantial number. Sorry so slow; I'll devote my wiki-time to this article now. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Comprehensive and extremely well-referenced. Pretty much the same as before. —Sunday Scribe 11:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you have the audio or a full transcript for this source, that you could share? This one:

  • (French) Pesnot, Patrick (producer) & Billoud, Michel (director) (10 March 2007), 1964, le putsch raté contre Léon M'Ba président du Gabon [radio], France Inter. Retrieved on 22 August 2008.

This reference is used for two claims, but I don't seem to find anything relevant to those claims in the reference:

  • "Whitney, Craig R. (20 March 1997), 'Jacques Foccart Dies at 83; Secret Mastermind in Africa', The New York Times, <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4D81E38F933A15750C0A961958260>. Retrieved on 6 August 2008 ."
  • used for: "He declared that Gabon's pro-French foreign policy would remain unchanged and that Mombo would supervise the government[23] until the presidency was given to the United States-supported Aubame"
  • used for: "Foccart, on the other hand, had only decided to launch the countercoup to protect the interests of the French petroleum group Elf, which operated in Gabon and was led by a close friend of his, though he claimed it was due to a friendship with M'ba"
  • So if neither statement is backed by the source, I suppose I have to ask, are there more surprises waiting for us?Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you've made a mistake. There is no need for a pdf file; the link you provided is freely available over the internet. So... does the article back up your assertions, or not? Thanks Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to help you sort this. You don't need a PDF: the full text is at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4D81E38F933A15750C0A961958260 :
The New York Times source says:
  • In 1964, Mr. Foccart sent French troops to oil-rich Gabon to keep Leon Mba, a close ally, in power against an American-supported rival, and incidentally to protect the local interests of the French petroleum group Elf, led by another close friend.
but the article says:
  • Foccart, on the other hand, had only decided to launch the countercoup to protect the interests of the French petroleum group Elf, which operated in Gabon and was led by a close friend of his, though he claimed it was due to a friendship with M'ba.
  • I have expanded on that. It seems that originally one ref was to cite one thing, but that got lost once more refs were added. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times source says:
  • nothing about Aubame or US-supported
but the article says:
  • He declared that Gabon's pro-French foreign policy would remain unchanged and that Mombo would supervise the government[23] until the presidency was given to the United States-supported Aubame.
    • I mixed up the two refs. The NYT ref was to support an earlier claim, but as I expanded upon it, it became deprecated. I should have removed it upon that point, but I did not. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source has no connection to the text cited. Ling.Nut inquires "are there more surprises waiting for us", meaning, is the article text supported by its cited sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Strenuous Oppose for starters as per 1(b). It kinda spills over into 1(c) and 1(d) as well, depending on how you look at it. Here is the bird's eye view of my argument; I'll give more details as they crop up:

  1. The article contradicts itself. This is not a random editing error (though I am absolutely sure it is unintentional, as far as the Wikipedia editors are concerned); it is an artifact of the fact that sources disagree. The main points of disagreement are: What was the popular response to the coup? And how involved was the US? Based on my research so far, it seems the French may have immediately set about generating propaganda to support their actions, to wit: There was no popular response, and the US backed Aubame. But... if there was no popular response, why were there riots? And if the US backed Aubame, why is it only the French who seem to know this fact? The US itself has no shortage of those who are eager to point out US involvement in any coup, etc. Where are those sources?
    There was no popular response. People went with life as usual (they mostly supported the coup) though the French tried to make it seem that this absense of response was due to the people not supporting the coup. There was riots because, as I said before, people supported the coup, and they thought it was a violation of their independence if France was to become involved. See "ordered the French not to interfere in the matter, claiming that it would be a violation of their sovereignty." in the Coup section. The US liked Aubame, this is now cited with a US source, they simply didn't participate in the coup at all. There is evidence that France did spread the rumors about the US, however it is proven that these rumors are false. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Facts, particularly background facts, are missing or glossed over.. This is an important issue for any meaningful (not to say, WP:FA-level) treatment in an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously. Some facts include: What were all the significant groups that supported Aubame? What groups supported M'Ba? What position did Aubame hold before M'Ba appointed him to the Supreme Court? Perhaps more importantly, what was the specific issue that precipitated M'Bas attempt to finesse Aubame? I really feel that the background is undeveloped.
    There were no significant groups that supported Aubame. There was the opposition, and the M'ba "loyalists". Though it was implied, I have clarified that Aubame was a deputy to the Nat'l Assembly. There was no specific issue that promped M'ba to get rid of Aubame; they just hated each other. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aubame was a member of M'Ba's cabinet; no less than foreign minister. There was indeed a specific issue that caused the "Supreme Court Power Move", and it was a significant one:

    "Within the coalition Government, Aubame had been Minister of Foreign Affairs, but early in 1963 he was dropped from the Cabinet for refusing to agree to the formation of a single-party regime, and appointed head of the Supreme Court, a largely powerless position, in a move designed to ensure that he lost his parliamentary immunity."

    Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The problems I outlined above lead to NPOV concerns. There are obviously POV positions staked out here, and none of these are explored in any meaningful manner.
    I believe the artical is as neutran now as can be. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I.... not to put too fine a point on it, but I am very very afraid of serious 1(c) (verifiability) issues. The nominator has already stated that he/she has no access to some of the sources. I have already found one freely and publicly available source in the refs that does not seem to support the assertions it is purported to support. I fear that no meaningful attempt at verification of the sources has been made. I am prepared of course to retract that statement if evidence to the contrary can be presented. That's all for now... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a singular mistake. I can access some refs if I do a little digging, though I am confident that this article is FA-standard in verifiability. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me speak extremely bluntly. I see a pattern of omissions and a lack of research. I think this article, which "didn't even exist until two days " before the FAC nom (as stated above) was copy/pasted from both the English and french Wikipedias (and Wikipedia is not a relaible source!), with perhaps a wee bit of translation... and no meaningful attempt at research. If we as Wikipedians want to render the past intelligible to current readers, we must be a great deal more diligent than this. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that your comment was a gross overgeneralization and an insult to all who worked on the page. I must admit that you are right in one regard: the article was originally cut and pasted from Leon M'ba. M'ba was basically a translation from the French Wikipedia, as part of a translation project by me and User:Nishkid64, which also includes Félix Houphouët-Boigny (GA), Philibert Tsiranana, and William Tubman (both currently translating). But really, what's wrong with translating from another wikipedia when it has citations to back up its claims and was promoted to FA status? And more specifically to this article, what is wrong with a content fork? But if you think this is only a content fork, then you are very wrong. "No meaningful attempt at research" - try saying that with a straight face when you look at the diffs of over 300 quality edits by Blofeld, Nishkid, myself and others: [2] And as for the "pattern of omissions and a lack of research", well apparently you don't know that Gabon is one of the most poorly covered countries by reliable sources, and this article would tell any student everything that is known about the coup. Please, stop making such uninformed insults. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When an editor translates, it's their obligation to verify the sources. From your answers to queries throughout the FAC relating to comprehensiveness and the sources used, questions about whether you've actually accessed and verified the sources used in the French version are understandable, and as pointed out by Ling.Nut above, there is even doubt about the use of easily available English-language sources, which has been wrong at times. When four books have been written, it doesn't seem that we can dismiss comprehensive concerns with statements about Gabon being poorly covered by reliable sources. We can't just translate an article from another Wiki and expect it will meet FA standards; we have to raise an article to the comprehensive standard required on en.Wiki, and that requires verifying the sources and expanding on them as needed. Do you have possession of the four French-language books/sources used in the French version? If so, perhaps Renata's inquiries can be addressed. Considering the concerns raised by Ling.Nut, it's not clear that this article meets 1b, 1c or 1d; perhaps this concern can be resolved by providing exact quotes from the French sources in response to some of the queries raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I;m not saying thst verifying sources isn't a good idea but wasn't this article written from FA material on French wikipedia? In all due respect, if the article was believed to be false or wasn't written by somebody with the books does anybody think it would have passed FA on French wikipedia? The best thing I think would be to try to contact one of the writers who have used the books on French wikipedia. The Bald One White cat 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keese and Bernault are both accessible, so it shouldn't be difficult to verify the claims backed by these sources. Biteghé might be a little more difficult to track down, though. The book is at the Library of Congress, but I'd much rather be able to have the book at my fingertips at home, rather than having to trek to the LOC Reading Room every time I want to confirm something. I've sent a request through my university to get the book from another library in the US. Hopefully I'll receive it within two weeks, but no guarantees... Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also picked a number of African history books, so I'll start perusing through them and adding refs to this article wherever appropriate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed Matthews' African Powder Keg: Revolt and Dissent in Six Emergent Nations (1966) has an entire 20 page chapter devoted to the 1964 Gabon coup. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be sure I'm clear here; I'm reading the discussion from several editors here as indicating that the editors of this article have not consulted the sources, rather have relied on a non-reliable source (fr.wiki) and translated directly from that source rather than from the reliable sources. If that is the case, I don't see how I can leave this FAC open. WP:V is policy; we don't cite articles to non-reliable sources, and it's surprising that anyone might consider the Fr.wiki as a reliable source. Does anyone have the French books, can anyone supply exact quotes from them, and can anyone confirm whether this article was written from the original sources or was just a translation from a non-reliable source (fr.wiki)? Articles may get through GAN or PR or DYK without using reliable sources or without having anyone actually consult the sources, but they should not get through FAC if reliable sources aren't used, and questions about the comprehensiveness of the article can't be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how reliable sources aren't being used. The article was translated from the French FA version, which relied heavily on Keese, Bernault, and Biteghe, all reliable. I believe the French books are available at Google Books. What quotes should I use, anyway? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the sources, and did you verify that they were accurately used? The French Wiki is not a reliable source; like any Wiki, anyone can add anything to it. Also, do you have the sources? If not, how can you respond to queries related to the article's comprehesiveness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have Keese and Bernault. Biteghe obviously exists. The French Wikipedia article is Featured, so I would not doubt that it would be in tip-top shape. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EOTW, if I'm reading correctly, you are confirming that this article was translated from a non-reliable source (a Wiki), and that the cited sources weren't all consulted and aren't all available (including the audio questioned above by Ling.Nut). Regarding how reliable any featured article may be on any Wiki, reference the three dozen or so articles at a time found at WP:FAR. Wikis are not reliable sources; we can't assume anything about them, nor can we assume the fr.wiki standards are the same as ours wrt comprhensiveness and other criterion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would consulting Polaert (the main author of M'ba, Aubame, FHB, and others on the FR wikipedia) about the reliability of M'ba work? It's all really about trust, right? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, but the French Wikipedia FAs can hardly compare to English Wikipedia FAs. The FAC process at fr.wiki is not very exhaustive and it's easy to get an article plagued with POV issues (Tsiranana is an example) or even source issues to FA status. I agree with Sandy that we should verify the text attributed to French sources. However, I ask Sandy to hold off on closing this nomination for now. As mentioned earlier, I found some sufficient English sources that can be used to re-source the article. I will start this process within the next day or two. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I'm more concerned that editors are understanding the underlying issue wrt WP:V and translations from non-reliable sources, and EOTW and I have had some discussion on my talk page.[3] If you can get your hands on the sources, would you mind revisiting the comprehensiveness questions raised by Renata before the restart? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I'll also try to pick up the African Powder Keg (what an interesting name!) If Polaert was the nominator, would we be having problems with me not accessing the sources? Perhaps we could add him to thi line... :) --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to point out that I put a correct translation of the French above, and pointed out a significant error in the actual "French" part. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, putting this here: WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your source is really the Web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

So, this article would be largely cited to the French Wiki, which is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, Sandy. that it has been translated from FA material on French wikipedia. What makes you think there aren't people on French wikipedia like yourself who have high standards for their FA articles and haven't verified them? Why does there always seem to be a huge mistrust of other articles on other wikipedias which have passed FA? I know the standards on other wikipedias are generally lower for FAs and there are some examples of "bad eggs" so to speak which have clear issues, but that doesn't mean to say they haven't some standards to abide by and that there aren't some top quality articles on the others. Wikipedia is not a reliable source no but the article was written from various sources which are believed to be reliable and merely put into English. I strongly urge somebody to contact the editors on French wikipedia and try to sort something out. What I fail to understand is that if the writer had written the article on english wikipedia at the FA people would take his word for it that his citations and sources are as stated. There can never be 100% guarantee when book sources are used. For instance User:Pericles of Athens on his various FAs on Chinese history. Are you telling me Sandy that other editors personally loaned the same books that he used just to ensure that he was telling the truth and to make the FA pass? With book sources used on wikipedia surely there has to be an element of trust. I fail to see how the book sources used is this article are regarded as inadequate when there are clear citations like any other FA article using book sources on here. I can see why you might think that the person verifying the information should be the author in english but I'm sure there is a way to verify it. If Nishkid contacted the writers on French wikipedia to confirm things would you still feel the same way? You certainly have a valid point though Sandy, which I'm sure could be sorted given time. Might I also suggest that this FA candidacy is put on hold at least until Nishkid is able to make contact? The Bald One White cat 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all nice thoughts, eloquently put. The key point is that the current nominators copy/pasted together an article with key facts missing, and with a glaring lack of analysis to provide insight. All else is extraneous. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the first sentence was a bit snippy. I apologize... However, I must add that at this point the article has (so to speak) been caught with its hand in the cookie jar repeatedly. My credulity has been stretched to the breaking point. Thus it isn't merely the French sources I want to see produced, it's all of them. Those 1964 article from WaPo and NYT would be a good place to start. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Response to TBO):
  • An editor cannot rely on a source known only through an intermediate source;
  • An editor can rely on a reliable intermediate source, but must disclose it;
  • Another wiki is not reliable.
Articles change over time, and sourcing standards may differ. If someone with access to the ultimate sources comes to the article and edits it, thereby vouching for those sources, that first-hand vouching for the sources can be accepted on good faith. But reliability depends on those ultimate sources, not on another wiki. Kablammo (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All made even more complicated by EOTW's statements that he doesn't read French. [4] [5] Since EOTW doesn't read French, 1) I'm unclear how the translations were accomplished, 2) I'm unclear if he consulted the sources at all, and 3) the questions raised earlier relating to comprehensiveness can't be addressed, since they may rely on French-language sources. Perhaps we can get some clarification? (re TBO, if the misunderstandings about fundamental WP:V policy are that profound, even at FAC, Wiki has a big problem, that should be addressed outside of the scope of this FAC. Absolutely, if someone translated an FA I had written to another language, without consulting the sources, I would not expect that to be featured work on any language Wiki. It's not about me or any other editor or trustiworthiness or whether the article is featured or how much we trust a given editor; it's about WP:V policy. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and translating without consulting the original sources amounts to citing an article to a non-reliable source, since the actual source is a Wiki. It's a concern that several editors haven't internalized that message; has this practice of translating articles without consulting sources been widespread on Wiki? If that happens, well, it's probably a good enough method for a stub or start-class article, and I see others have gotten through GA (where sourcing isn't as stringently reviewed), but it shouldn't be sufficient for a featured article, where solid sourcing and academic scholarship is expected.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, you'd expect an FA to be written directly from the sources. The problem lies in that it isn't a first hand account so the writers of the article in English haven't a direct way to verify all of the information in the article. Has anybody tried to find the sources in google books? The Bald One White cat 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I couldn't stand the faulty translation anymore, so I made a better attempt. Its not perfect, but it actually means what Mba said. I switched J jour to jour J per the French use and the actual French page's quote. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottova, I deleted the definite article in "The D-Day" as the more idiomatic English likely would be "D-Day". Cf. [6] and D-Day. Kablammo (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For accuracy's sake, it was I who did the French to English translation of Léon M'ba#1964 Gabon coup d'état. I relied on Google Translate, dictionaries and verified my translations with multiple French speakers on #wikipedia-fr. Translations from French to English are always tricky, especially when you're working with a direct French quote, so I apologize for the mistranslation here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much about it. I fixed it. It needs to be fixed by someone with more translating skill, but it is closer. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me to this discussion about the French featured articles' reliability. For a French editor like me, it is always nice to attend denigration of the French wikipedia. It is often acknowledged that French editors like writing fake things. The sources they indicate, are only there to make their articles more aesthetic. Besides, I totally agree with you about the fact that the selection criteria of our feaured articles are apalling. You are so superior in this field that we may just pretend to be barbarians. I am ready to send you a copy of Moises Nsolé Biteghé's book for 5,80 euros if you want to check your great theories on the french wikipedia ( here is the link proving that this books does cost 5,80). On the other hand, I can send by mail, a wave of « (French) Pesnot, Patrick (producer) & Billoud, Michel (director) (10 March 2007), 1964, le putsch raté contre Léon M'Ba président du Gabon [radio], France Inter. ». Polaert (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia isn't a reliable source either, by the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polaert, you've done some great work on the French Wikipedia, and I apologize if you were offended by my tone regarding fr.wiki editors such as yourself. I have no doubt that you properly sourced the article, but the points raised by other editors are valid in my opinion. Verifying content by adding references is a key part of the article writing process, and it seems we skipped that almost entirely while translating the article. Since the issue essentially boils down to the fact that we're now relying on information from a wiki (a no-no according to WP:V and WP:RS), I believe it's a reasonable expectation to verify the French language sources used to reference this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll try to replace the Fr soures with English ones, if possible. Nishkid did do much of the original translation, but I added onto that to the cuerrent length of 30 kb. There is always that element of trust regarding book sources but I did not know the standards were so strict (which I guess was foolish of me, since I've been here for 7 months). I'll try to get a copy of the African Powder Keg though I don't think that will happen for ~3 days. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment. Prose issues at a number of places. Examples: "Yet in practice, the regime showed a fundamental weakness in attaining M'ba's goal"; "made a decision in accordance with a treaty between the M'ba government and the French signed in 1960 to restore the legitimate government"; "Dahomey submitted a minor demurral." And so on. But the article is not far off. I haven't checked out the sources, though in a couple of places (indicated with inline quotations) I have my doubts about the accuracy of quotations from English; it is even more likely that there are problems in sources or translations from French. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All sources. French and English. Every single one. No way on heaven or earth will I change my oppose 'til I see every one. We can talk all day about how reliable the French Wikipedia is— but that is a distraction, a misdirection, and an attempt to turn this into something personal. It is not about the French Wikipedia.. This article was copy/pasted the same way high school students do, and no one even bothered to check any of the sources. This is irresponsible. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Have I got this right (sorry I haven't had time to do much more than skim the discussion)... that the quotations from English are actually re-translations of French quotations of those sources? If so, that's unacceptable. I do hope I'm wrong. But it would explain some of these strange formulations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, the article was originally a mere translation from the French wikipedia, but more than half is original content. I'm trying to get my hands on the African Powder Keg to supplement Biteghe--other than that I've got all the sources. What more do you need? I really hate seeing you judge this as a copypaste instead of an actual researched article that needs a few kinks worked out before it can beconsidered "of our best work". But we're way past halfway there. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not "insulting your efforts" (as per your edit summary). I'm asking a question, following on from Ling.Nut's comment, and stating a position based on one possible answer. If the English sources cited (e.g. the NYT article "Gabon Chief Clears U.S. of Role in Plot") are retranslations from the French, then that is unacceptable. I tried to check the original, but it's behind a paywall from where I am right now. If they are not, i.e. if you've checked the originals, then AOK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've checked this one. (It's the only source I've checked.) It's not a re-translation. But there was a misquotation. Please check all sources. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jb, the bit about "...if you've checked the originals" is the problem. They have not. Read above where it was proven at least twice, and then note their strange silence regarding my requests for access to their sources. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of a few kinks. Produce your sources. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have all my sources except Biteghe, which I will try to wean off of. Please note I will be offline for a day or so--the shore calls. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that puts my mind more at rest. NB I still think there are prose issues. I'll try to return to do some more copy-editing, but am on the run right now, and certainly won't be here again until tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet in practice, the regime showed a fundamental weakness in attaining M'ba's goal"
  • "made a decision in accordance with a treaty between the M'ba government and the French signed in 1960 to restore the legitimate government"
  • "Dahomey submitted a minor demurral."

(undent) Once again, if he has the sources, it is only because I called his hand on not having them, and he belatedly contacted the French Wikipedians. It is proven above.. I was too nice when i asked for only one source; I should have asked for each and every one. I am now doing so. All sources. Every single one. French. English. Any other possible language. All sources. I would say "now" but of course our editors are conveniently going on break... waiting for the sources to roll in. This is manipulation of Wikipedia. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've acknowledged the errors of our ways. Could we at least be constructive instead of rubbing this problem in our faces? The English sources should have been used properly, since I provided all of them to EoTW via e-mail (PDFs obtained from ProQuest). Also, please be patient while EoTW and I gather the French language sources. I've requested Biteghe from a library outside of my university library system, so it may take days before I receive the book. For now, however, I'll try to replace Biteghe with Matthews (1966) and other sources. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is waiting patiently. Meanwhile, would you mind sharing all those pdfs with me as well, please? I'd like to verify every cite. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Send me an e-mail. I'll reply with the PDFs attached. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once Nishkid gets a hand on Biteghe (I'm too lazy :) and I expand with Matthews, do you withdraw your opposition? Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) after I check every single reference. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rec'd an email from Nishkid. While I'm grateful to the nominators for procuring and producing a number of relevant English-language references in time to (it seems) prevent the nom from closing, I'm afraid I am not as willing as others to sweep dirt under the rug. Under no circumstances will I be supporting this nom, as it is an egregious case of disdain and disrespect for WP:5P. I will, however, continue to check all references, probably Thursday or Friday-ish. I may be editing the article in accordance with what info the references (both those emailed me by Nishkid & those I have acquired through my own research) provide. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got Biteghe in my hands now. I'll start pasting quotations from the page references on the article talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on fact-checking; temporarily located here. Not close to finished. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. If the sources for every FAC received this kind of systematic check, it would be fantastic. (Indeed, if the sources for academic articles received this kind of systematic check, it would be quite something. Though in the case of academic articles, you hope that you can usually rely on the author to have done his or her job properly. Not always, though.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Caution: WaPo 'No Pity No Pardon' and NYT 'Many Gabonese Angered' contradict each other with respect to how widespread the discontent with M'ba was: the former says it was a small group of soldiers; the latter emphasizes that it was significantly more widespread. Beware of leaning on either source. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't: The Gabonese Army was small, but most of it supported the coup. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 19:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the sources? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't, then why would this FAC be up and running? Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 10:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article meets all criteria, including 1 (c). I find the dramatic statements about sources to be rather overblown. To be sure, accurate sourcing is a must. But Editorofthewiki and Nishkid have used accurate and reliable sources, and there's no reason to take Polaert's work at less than face value simply because he is a Utilisateur and not a User. And of course, as the two authors here are now going through the very sources used by Polaert, and confirming (as if that were really necessary) that Polaert's version was not misleading, there's no reason to delay awarding FA status at this point. Should problems be discovered in the future, they can be fixed or the article de-listed, but I somewhat doubt that will be the case. The scrutiny received has already been quite high. Biruitorul Talk 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No really. Who started this anti-French wiki meme that is both distracting (its main objective, I suppose—making the discussion personal and international very effectively misdirects attention from the article's inadequacies, see the result in the comments immediately above) and destructive (a regrettable side-effect)? The fact that confirmation is necessary has been proven by truly egregious misrepresentations of fact... really, words fail me. Everyone rallies around people and refuses to look at facts. Is this what we want Wikipedia to be? This is social networking squared.

Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I find your manner of opposing this article quite disruptive. You really are insulting our efforts on the article. I'm currently acquiring Matthews, but since there is no good library around me I have to have it shipped from Temple University in Philadelphia, which according to them will take 10 days maximum (but it's already been five). This is social networking squared. If you think this is social networking, check out the user and talk pages of several prominent wikipedians. "Everyone rallies around people and refuses to look at facts." I'm sorry, but I think you're the only one who's been rallying around beople and until recently been ignoring the fact that this article has improved tremendously since the FAC began. And there's still some to go, but stop "rubbing it in our faces", as Nishkid said. Please, focus on the article, not the FAC. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section Much of article weak on comprehensiveness'
  • Aftermath: There was a permanent French military contingent just outside the capital, for example. French military presence continued for years (certainly until 1967; maybe much longer). Where is discussion of the possibility of neocolonialism in this article? I don't see it. There was also an "orgy of arrests and beatings" by "squads of thugs" immediately after the coup. The later vote to reinstall M'ba included votes by "French nationals"; I'm uncertain of other examples where people who are citizens of one country can vote in another country's elections... french citizens were placed in key positions in the gov't... etc.
  • Background and origins The immediate precursor--indeed, the cause-- of the coup was M'ba's attempts to force Aubame's party to merge into M'ba's. No mention of a fact so crucial! The french oil and timber industries were huge background players. No mention! the timber industry supported M'Ba: "Aubame for years had enjoyed French intellectual and liberal support, but in 1957 French business interests in Gabon, lead by the powerful forestry concerns ..."... No mention! The power balance shifted from the timber to the oil industry after the coup. No mention! .... please do more research!
    • Where is this from? I did mention that Foccart was only trying to protect the interests of Elf, a petroleum company. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 10:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major source missing: African Betrayal by CHARLES E. and ALICE B. DARLINGTON New York, David McKay, 1968. That would be Charles Darlington, the US ambassador to Gabon (his name is mentioned in the article), whose book looks at these events. Don't you think we might find some important info there? Forex, darlington apparently does call Aubame "pro-US" but not "US-supported". I say "apparently because all i have is a book review, not the original source. But Darlington apparently discusses the French actions in detail... Why is this major source not employed? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read it in time to include its contents in the article before the FAC closes? ... EOTW, please think. I keep bringing up significant problems; you keep wanting to slap bandaids on the worst of them, ignore the others, and pretend this is an FA-quality attempt. This article needs a top-to-bottom rewrite. It needs a rewrite for factual omissions. It needs a rewrite for analysis of various POVs. Above all, it needs real, actual research to actually be carried out... which I seem to be doing for you. I'll send you the review. Reply to my email. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your email doesn't seem to be enabled. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can also send you The Journal of Modern African Studies, 25, 2 (1987), pp. 283-320 Gabon: a Neo-Colonial Enclave of Enduring French Interest by MICHAEL C. REED. It has the following useful quotes, plus others:

  • Since the I950s there has existed what is known as Le Clan des gabonais...Le Clan ensures that certain French businesses in Gabon serve as covers for arms trading, mercenary recruiting, and counterfeit currency dealing; they also help finance right-wing politics in France. Creed 306

  • All the while, 600 French paratroopers, along with an air-force unit that includes Mirage V and Jaguar jet-fighters (most of whose pilots are French), have been permanently stationed at Camp de Gaulle near the capital of Libreville, a clear warning to any would-be rebels in Gabon's thinly populated interior. Creed 284 [NOTE THIS was written in 1987; still a French military presence then]

  • Between I944 and I954 there emerged the two Gabonese political factions that would compete until independence: the initially left- leaning political organisations of Paul Indjenjet Gondjout and Leon M'Ba, backed by the French forestry industry, and the centrist party created by Jean-Hilaire Aubame, which had the support of the missions and the French administration. These three Catholics were the major Gabonese politicians of the post-war period. Creed 292

  • Within the coalition Government, Aubame had been Minister of Foreign Affairs, but early in 1963 he was dropped from the Cabinet for refusing to agree to the formation of a single-party regime, and appointed head of the Supreme Court, a largely powerless position, in a move designed to ensure that he lost his parliamentary immunity. Unexpectedly, Aubame resigned from the Court on 10 January I964, thus keeping his seat in the National Assembly. This was dissolved on 2I January by M'Ba, who ordered new elections for 23 February. The U.D.S.G. refused to participate. Such was the setting for that month's military intervention. Creed 296

  • Apart from widespread public displeasure with the ostentation of the ruling class, there was a lot of discontent among the 6oo-man Gabonese army, many of whom had, prior to independence, served in the French army where they had received relatively good pay and benefits. Creed 297

  • On 1-2 March I964, Gabonese workers and students in Libreville demonstrated against the M'Ba 'dictatorship', and these protests spread to the towns of Port-Gentil and N'Dende, and continued into the summer. In August the trial of the military rebels and of members of the provisional government opened in Lambarene. Those convicted were given long-term imprisonments, including Aubame, who was sentenced to ten years hard labour and ten years banishment. Creed 298

  • [ NOTE quote of quote; original source needs to be acquired... ] The de Gaulle regime incorrectly regarded Aubame as less friendly to French involvement in Gabon and more favorable to increased American involvement, a claim which Aubame denies. David E. Gardinier, Historical Dictionary of Gabon (Metuchen, N. J., I98 ), pp. 59-60.

  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing notes: as in other cases when I've closed a controversial or difficult FAC, I will leave a closing rationale on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1964_Gabon_coup_d%27état/archive1&oldid=1078785103"