Talk:Angolan Civil War

Latest comment: 8 months ago by Socialwave597 in topic Suggestion of removal "desertors"

Former good articleAngolan Civil War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
November 18, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 20, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 20, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 4, 2011, April 4, 2012, April 4, 2016, April 4, 2017, and April 4, 2020.
Current status: Delisted good article

Sudanese involvement?

edit

Sudan had supported the Zaireans during the Shaba invasions. The Shaba invasions had Angolan Civil War veterans in it. Did Sudan provide support during the Angolan civil War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.17.101.129 (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Section on ethnic groups?

edit

During the civil war, all sides were primarily supported by one of the three largest ethnic groups in the country. For example, the Mbundus who mostly lived on the coastal areas and larger cities supported the MPLA and the mostly rural, less wealthy Obimbundus supported UNITA. While the Civil War was not motivated by ethnic hatred, there was definitely a wealth inequality between the groups that the article doesn't go into as much detail as it could.

Suggestion of removal "desertors"

edit

Hello Wiki users

I was checking into the matters of this war since a recent video, and i came upon a weird statement in the infobox on the actual wikipedia article that "50 000 Cuban soldiers deserted" during this war. It seems rather... Weird since a little over 300 000 Cubans went over there during the whole war, almost 1 out of 5 deserted in Angola ?

The only source for this statement is the following,

Horowitz, Irving Louis (1995). Cuban Communism/8th Editi. Transaction Publishers. p. 560

Which after research seems heavily biaised, the statement itself comes from a former Cuban General "56 000" (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1987-06-30-8702250398-story.html), which could (or not) include people trying to escape the military service in Cuba itself and not in Africa, and the name in english i suppose is "Conscientious objector" not desertors in that case.

I was wondering if it was possible to remove the statement from the statistics until it is supported by some other (non biaised) sources, because it feels like just an error or an overestimation or a voluntary mixup by people who doesn't really like the regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.140.196 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any mention of it in the main article either, I think removing it until we can get a better source is a good call. RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It made its way back into the article, despite beeing flagged "dubious" in the Cuban involvment in Angola article 184.145.223.215 (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've removed it several times already but someone keeps adding it back. Socialwave597 (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Consensus to delist. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA from 2007. There's some uncited sections and a refimprove tag for roots of the the conflict section that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Delist - "Ethnic divisions" and "Portuguese colonialism" subsections lack any references, and perhaps a few dozen other sentences lack full referencing. Prose like The Angolan Civil War was notable due to ... needs to be reworked, while statements like demining operations expected to finish by 2014 betray the outdatedness of the article. The Aftermath and "In popular culture" sections are not cohesive, and the latter might be worth axing entirely as a collection of trivia. The citation style is mixed and some books lack page number cites. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Delist Executive summary: this is an incoherent article. I have not compared it yet with the original promotion that might be a point from which to start anew. the Roots of the conflict section is not supported by what follows - ie it is suggested that root of the conflict is ethnic (tribal) but the body of the article suggests that it is more socio-political (city communist v rural non-communist). There are clearly compounding events in neighbouring "countries" but the article does not present this context (eg the Namibia-South Africa-Angola dynamic). The article describes three main divisions to the conflict. Arguably, each phase should be dealt with as: issues, conflict, resolution and analysis (or similar). However, the article structure does not follow this but is decadic. This is the top level article for the conflict. It should deal with events at the top level in detail. It doesn't. At places, it reports "support" by other nations without describing the nature of such support. At other places, it reports minutiae (events) without establishing context - eg, how is fleeing 60 km relevant to the greater scheme of things? The article is visually/spatially inadequate. Many places are mentioned but their spatial significance is not established. Then, we have an infobox from hell. It tries to capture too much and fails to capture anything. I could perhaps be a bit more specific but much less brief. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert

edit

@Rajanrandvi can you explain why you reverted my edit without an explanation? NorthTension (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was reverting the cross-wiki POV pusher SpinnerLaserzthe2nd and your edit got caught in the middle of it. Rajanrandvi (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
You have been blocked several times on other wikis for edit warring and making socks (which is a huge no no). SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2023

edit

Please change

  • Malaquias, Assis. Rebels and Robbers: Violence in Post-Colonial Angola, Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 2007

to

  • Assis Malaquias (2007). Rebels and Robbers: Violence in Post-Colonial Angola. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. ISBN 978-91-7106-580-3. Biblinsi (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Done Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 18:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply