Talk:Ghana Army

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ghana.

Military history: National / African C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	African military history task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Shades of green#Dartmouth green|Dartmouth Green]] The anchor (#Dartmouth green) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Equipment??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.135.129.27 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

British as opposed to "white" officers - "Ghanaians" as opposed to "black Ghanaians"

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Howzit all,

Buckshot06: I noticed one of my recent contributions to the article was reverted as "a goof" or "vandalism", and object to this sort of dismissal to what I believe was a perfectly justifiable revision. The edit entailed replacing use of the term "British", favouring "white" and specifying that black Ghanaians (as opposed to Ghanaians in general) were a minority in the army's officer corps at independence.

There were 15,600 whites in Ghana at independence, and many of them had been born there. They held military positions much like expatriate British service members but could not be regarded wholly as British; for instance, upon Ghanaian independence they would've been regarded as Ghanaian citizens. This is an important distinction; where the military history of Northern and Southern Rhodesia was concerned, most military scholars distinguish between white Zambians and Zimbabweans serving in the military at independence and British expatriates seconded by their government. Given that persons of European descent actually made up a larger percentage of the population in Ghana than Zambia at the time, I feel the same precedent should be extended to them accordingly. Consider that in all British territories with sizable white communities, local whites were heavily overrepresented in the colonial and immediate post-independence military establishments. Certainly they did not outnumber the number of British expatriate staff (at least, those on short-term contracts) but nevertheless the point stands.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That "goof" was finger trouble - you'll see the text was "goof faith or vandalism?" meant to be "good faith or vandalism?". I could understand to a degree why you might alter the wording, but did not understand why you removed useful exact numerical data. Given that removal of sourced data, I elected to simply revert the entire edit. Why did you remove the 29 out of 209, removing the exact numbers of officers in the army at a particular time?

I understand your rationale for the wording, but feel it needs minor tweaks - use wording something like "British Ghanaians"? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't have that source on hand, and I wasn't certain whether both the percentage and the exact numerical figure of 29 out of 209 individuals were in the source. I know it sounds nitpicky but in the past, I've had issues with well-meaning contributors citing a source which stated "approximately X percent of this figure" but then proceeded to calculate that number themselves and include it in the text (something I consider original research). You can understand why in this context it looked to be a similar circumstance. Of course, if the same book cites both the percentage and the number I stand corrected.

"British Ghanaians" would work well for the tweaked wording, as it could cover both expatriates and former colonials who became Ghanaian citizens upon independence. --Katangais (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yep, the wording needs some tweaks. Greetings →Enock4seth ^(talk) 11:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghana Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic