Talk:Peaceful transition of power

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles International development High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wasn't the person who determined Libya to be a textbook example for "Peaceful transition of power" able to find a worse example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.242.193 (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its well covered in the scholarship, so you need sources debating it if we want to deconstruct it or better information explaining the process, Sadads (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any half-credible scholar would use Libya as an example of a failed attempt at peaceful transition, since there has been ongoing civil strife, widespread political violence and no stable unified government since the fall of Gaddafi. See the articles on the Libyan Crisis (2011–present) and Libyan Civil War (2014-present). Better examples of a peaceful transition imho include the Spanish transition to democracy, Mongolian Revolution of 1990, German reunification etc. Famisht (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Famisht: please bring citations for that -- totally open to the article evolving, Sadads (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads and Neutrality: Neutrality would like to see more scholarly references. It's true that the end of the Gaddafi period was a civil war with international participation, and the August 2012 peaceful transition of power to the General National Congress was followed by a gradual (or stochastic) decay into a renewed civil war. I don't see why that would invalidate the peaceful transition that did occur. However, I'm not an academic source on the question. I would propose first creating a Libya-2012 subsection in the body of the article, and if the sourcing is solid enough, decide if it's significant enough for the lead. Dec 2021 will hopefully lead to a second peaceful transition of power, but we'll probably have to wait for political realities and academic sources to decide whether it should be called "second" or not... Boud (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV opinion piece tacked on to this at the end of the article, r.e.: the United States, really needs to go. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GenQuest: Why do you think this is an opinion? It was a widely reported conversation, and continue to be so (that is why the page keeps getting pageview spikes -- clearly readers are seeking this page as part of their exploration of the recent news. Moreover, there is a whole article on the peaceful transition in the United States: United_States_presidential_transition -- which is clearly connected. We can certainly tweak language, but these are the widely reported public opinions, not some narrowly scoped POV, Sadads (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no justification to remove the US paragraph, but it was very much making Wikipedia statements about what Wikipedia wants for US democracy. Which is not what Wikipedia is about: Wikipedia is not the citizenry of the USA. I had a quick go at switching the POV. A bit of work is needed in sourcing, becoming less vague, and so on. Boud (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the idea that the US had a streak of unbroken peaceful transitions of power from 1800 to 2020 is a little oversimplified. Does the 1860 election fully qualify? Buchanan didn't fight to stay in office past his term but a large chunk of the opposition responded by seceding and starting a civil war. 2600:4041:54F0:4000:9058:4C79:2A6C:FC9B (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1860 United States presidential election. Good point. The American Civil War was not peaceful. It didn't remove Lincoln from the presidency, but it affected political power. I guess we would need some proper historians' peer-reviewed scholarly analyses to override the current History Channel source and the opinion of 10 former US Secretaries of Defense. Boud (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have some WP:RS (academic sources) to include power sharing in the body of this article, since power-sharing arrangements can often be a step towards a full power transition - although they can also lead to further instability. I'm fairly sure that at least one of the academic sources used in complex system approach to peace and armed conflict documents what appear to be the conditions that can make power-sharing likely to either evolving towards stable democracy and human rights protection versus likely to be a step towards a new armed conflict. For the moment I've just put power sharing as a see also. Boud (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boud If you have a good source, I think a couple sentences makes sense in the role in the studies, otherwise, I think see also sections are fine. Sadads (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]