Wikipedia

Talk:Liberia

(Redirected from Talk:Liberia/Comments)
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Donald Albury in topic 1910
Learn more about this page


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Camiokahara.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Liberia...only African republic to have...independence without gaining independence through revolt from any other nation

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Liberia is the only African republic to have self-proclaimed independence without gaining independence through revolt from any other nation, being Africa's first and oldest modern republic"

What about South Africa? SA did not gain independence through revolt. The Anglo-Boer War was an internal struggle between two groups of settlers but was not a revolt against a colonising nation. Maybe it would be better to say 'the only West or Central African republic to have gained independence...without...revolt form any other nation." ???

154.0.7.219 (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

This assumes the Boers are not African. Arguable, but POV. 12.201.7.2 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Blood Diamonds?

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The term blood diamonds is contentious. For example, some would consider that nearly all blood diamonds are blood diamonds. People who own diamond mines tend to accuse their neighbors of selling blood diamonds, so that they can discourage competition.

For example, I think that in the sentence, "Under Taylor's leadership, Liberia became internationally known as a pariah state due to its use of blood diamonds and illegal timber exports to fund the Revolutionary United Front in the Sierra Leone Civil War," maybe should be changed to, "Under Taylor's leadership, Liberia became internationally known as a pariah state due to allegations of illicitly procured diamonds and illegal timber exports to fund the Revolutionary United Front in the Sierra Leone Civil War."
Found this, for example - https://africasacountry.com/2010/11/the-blood-diamond-myth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.39.187 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberia. 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) 06:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The lost decades

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apparently nothing of any importance happened in Liberia between the 1950s and 1980s.Nicmart (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Liberia. 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) 13:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberia. 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) 17:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Liberia. 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) 19:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some Questions

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Decent enough article so far, although there is some direct repetition of sentences - e.g. "until 1904, in a repetition of the United States' treatment of Native Americans". Moreover, I'm curious about the following answers. 1. This article says nothing about how the Americo-Liberians took possession of the land. Did they rob it or buy it or a mixture? How much land? What military force, if any, did they use in, I presume, the 1840s? Was there any resistance from the outset among the natives? If the US government did not recognise the country's independence until 1862, did it have any role in establishing it in 1847? 2. In the Ethnic Groups box, there is no mention of Americo-Liberians at all. Are they not considered a distinct ethnic group? If they are, what percentage are they? Dáibhí Ó Bruadair (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Most of what you are asking about is covered (to some degree) in History of Liberia. The Liberia and History of Liberia articles have come a long way from the early days, but Wikipedia articles are never finished, so see what you think needs to be changed or added to them. - Donald Albury 13:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Dáibhí Ó Bruadair I came to find if anyone else asked about Americo liberians not being in the ethnic groups box. They're one of the most influential, so I'd think it would be important for them to be there. Owlblocks (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Constitution

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Supposedly, it denies white men the vote, or the right to own property. Worth a mention? 2600:1010:B06A:8FE8:C4C2:5DF1:BCBB:C5E6 (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you cite a reliable source? - Donald Albury 01:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Strictly speaking, it denies brown, red, white and yellow men the right to own property or vote.

The original 1847 constitution says:


“Sec 12th. No person shall be entitled to hold real estate in this Republic, unless he be a citizen of the same. Nevertheless this article shall not be construed to apply to Colonization, Missionary, Educational, or other benevolent institutions, so long as the property or estate is applied to its legitimate purpose

Sec. 13th . The great object of forming these Colonies, being to provide a home for the dispersed and oppressed children of Africa , and to regenerate and enlighten this benighted continent, None but persons of color shall be admitted to citizenship in this Republic.”

I suppose only citizens can vote, but don’t know.

They have had only one new constitution since, in 1986. That one still has the color bar, only now it says “ Negroes”.

Article 27(b) of the Constitution retains the controversial nationality requirements of Article V, Section 13 of the 1847 Constitution, which limits citizenship to "persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent." That seemed to cover voting. As for property:

“Article 22 a) Every person shall have the right to own property alone as well as in association with others; provided that only Liberian citizens shall have the right to own real property within the Republic .”

And just to be sure:

“Article27 a) All persons who, on the coming into force of this Constitution were lawfully citizens of Liberia shall continue to be Liberian citizens.

b) In order to preserve, foster and maintain the positive Liberian culture, values and character, only persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent shall qualify by birth or by naturalization to be citizens of Liberia.

c) The Legislature shall, adhering to the above standard, prescribe such other qualification criteria for and the procedures by which naturalization may be obtained.”

This is all in Wikipedia’s own article on the Liberian Constitution. I think the color bar should be included in the article on Liberia.

Notice that only persons of one race are able to “maintain the positive Liberian culture, values and character“. This is officially declared to be based on race.

I wonder why there are not demos in the streets all over the world against this institutionalized race discrimination?

No, I guess I don’t. 12.201.7.2 (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Constitution is a primary source. You can certainly add to the article that the Constitution of Liberia restricts citizenship by race, and restricts the ownership of real property to citizens. Any discussion beyond those simple statements would require support from reliable, independent, secondary or tertiary sources. I will note that a number of countries today restrict citizenship to persons of a specified descent, or restrict ownership of real property to citizens, and/or to members of a specified ethnic group. Liberia is not all that unusual in having such restrictions on citizenship or property ownership, and I would argue that it would be pushing a point of view to place much emphasis on those facts. - Donald Albury 14:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

That seems right; so someone could add that to the article; with a scholarly, rather than polemic emphasis

Other articles do emphasise, and critisise, countries that have such policies - see the archived discussions of the “white Australia” policy. However, I suppose we must not repeat such lapses here. 66.201.51.220 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Advanced

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Supposedly, there was to be a great result of introducing the modern world into Africa by way of free, civilized blacks. The ACS lit. of the period is filled with this idea. Liberia seems to have just existed on the fringe, and not done much of anything. Are there any studies that can be cited as to why this fizzling out of high hopes? 12.201.7.2 (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar with the literature that would cover this. I think that it was unreasonable from the start to expect a couple thousand freedmen, dumped on a (to them) foreign shore with little and soon-ending material support, to spread Christianity and Western values across a continent. - Donald Albury 14:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Era between 1910-1920

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all,

I noticed that in the History section there is a pretty significant gap in content in the decade between 1910 and 1920. I believe that a fair bit occurred during that time with regard to Liberia maintaining its independence during the Scramble for Africa and restructuring its debt to stay afloat. I feel that this is something worth adding. Danielnicastro (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Part of that period is covered in the article Liberia in World War I, but that article is quite short, and that still leaves 1910 to 1914. I see hints that Britain and France finally recognized Liberian sovereignty over interior areas around the turn of the century, and that Britain and France were concerned about German commercial interests in Liberia in the period leading up to WW II, but I am completely unfamiliar with sources for the history of that part of Africa. Sorry, I haven't been of much help. - Donald Albury 01:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply


POV Bias

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Mention is made of a modern work, which asserts that the Amero-Liberians were not interested in the native customs because they came from the racist South, etc. No other view is given. But many contemporary accounts suggest they did know what the natives were like, and did not approve. Some balance needed.

Here is a start: an account by a slave trader who entered a part of what is now Liberia, before civilisation arrived and the ages-old practice of slavery still existed. As well as other practices.

From “Captain Canot”(1854)

Quote from Canot, Théodore; "Adventures of a slave trader, 1820-1840"

During my first visit to Digby, I promised my trading friends—perhaps rather rashly—that I would either return to their settlement, or, at least, send merchandise and a clerk to establish a factory. This was joyous news for the traffickers, and, accordingly, I embraced an early occasion to despatch, in charge of a clever young sailor, such stuffs as would be likely to tickle the negro taste.

There were two towns at Digby, governed by cousins who had always lived in harmony. My mercantile venture, however, was unhappily destined to be the apple of discord between these relatives. The establishment of so important an institution as a slave-factory within the jurisdiction of the younger savage, gave umbrage to the elder. His town could boast neither of “merchandise” nor a “white man;” there was no profitable tax to be levied from foreign traffic; and, in a very short time, this unlucky partiality ripened the noble kinsmen into bitter enemies.

It is not the habit in Africa for negroes to expend their wrath in harmless words, so that preparations were soon made in each settlement for defence as well as hostility. Both towns were stockaded and carefully watched by sentinels, day and night. At times, forays were made into each other’s suburbs, but as the chiefs were equally vigilant and alert, the extent of harm was the occasional capture of women or children, as they wandered to the forest and stream for wood and water.

[Pg 383] This dalliance, however, did not suit the ardor of my angry favorite. After wasting a couple of months, he purchased the aid of certain bushmen, headed by a notorious scoundrel named Jen-ken, who had acquired renown for his barbarous ferocity throughout the neighborhood. Jen-ken and his chiefs were cannibals, and never trod the war-path without a pledge to return laden with human flesh to gorge their households.

Several assaults were made by this savage and his bushmen on the dissatisfied cousin, but as they produced no significant results, the barbarians withdrew to the interior. A truce ensued. Friendly proposals were made by the younger to the elder, and again, a couple of months glided by in seeming peace.

Just at this time business called me to Gallinas. On my way thither I looked in at Digby, intending to supply the displeased chieftain with goods and an agent if I found the establishment profitable.

It was sunset when I reached the beach; too late, of course, to land my merchandise, so that I postponed furnishing both places until the morning. As might fairly be expected, there was abundant joy at my advent. The neglected rival was wild with satisfaction at the report that he, too, at length was favored with a “white-man.” His “town” immediately became a scene of unbounded merriment. Powder was burnt without stint. Gallons of rum were distributed to both sexes; and dancing, smoking and carousing continued till long after midnight, when all stole off to maudlin sleep.

About three in the morning, the sudden screams of women and children aroused me from profound torpor! Shrieks were followed by volleys of musketry. Then came a loud tattoo of knocks at my door, and appeals from the negro chief to rise and fly. “The town was besieged:—the head-men were on the point of escaping:—resistance was vain:—they had been betrayed—there were no fighters to defend the stockade!”

I was opening the door to comply with this advice, when my Kroomen, who knew the country’s ways even better than I, dissuaded me from departing, with the confident assurance that our assailants were unquestionably composed of the rival townsfolk, [Pg 384] who had only temporarily discharged the bushmen to deceive my entertainer. The Kroo insisted that I had nothing to fear. We might, they said, be seized and even imprisoned; but after a brief detention, the captors would be glad enough to accept our ransom. If we fled, we might be slaughtered by mistake.

I had so much confidence in the sense and fidelity of the band that always accompanied me,—partly as boatmen and partly as body-guard,—that I experienced very little personal alarm when I heard the shouts as the savages rushed through the town murdering every one they encountered. In a few moments our own door was battered down by the barbarians, and Jen-ken, torch in hand, made his appearance, claiming us as prisoners.

Of course, we submitted without resistance, for although fully armed, the odds were so great in those ante-revolver days, that we would have been overwhelmed by a single wave of the infuriated crowd. The barbarian chief instantly selected our house for his headquarters, and despatched his followers to complete their task. Prisoner after prisoner was thrust in. At times the heavy mash of a war club and the cry of strangling women, gave notice that the work of death was not yet ended. But the night of horror wore away. The gray dawn crept through our hovel’s bars, and all was still save the groans of wounded captives, and the wailing of women and children.

By degrees, the warriors dropped in around their chieftain. A palaver-house, immediately in front of my quarters, was the general rendezvous; and scarcely a bushman appeared without the body of some maimed and bleeding victim. The mangled but living captives were tumbled on a heap in the centre, and soon, every avenue to the square was crowded with exulting savages. Rum was brought forth in abundance for the chiefs. Presently, slowly approaching from a distance, I heard the drums, horns, and war-bells; and, in less than fifteen minutes, a procession of women, whose naked limbs were smeared with chalk and ochre, poured into the palaver-house to join the beastly rites. Each of these devils was armed with a knife, and bore in her hand some cannibal trophy. Jen-ken’s wife, a corpulent wench of forty-five,—dragged along the ground, by a single limb, the [Pg 385] slimy corpse of an infant ripped alive from its mother’s womb. As her eyes met those of her husband the two fiends yelled forth a shout of mutual joy, while the lifeless babe was tossed in the air and caught as it descended on the point of a spear. Then came the refreshment, in the shape of rum, powder, and blood, which was quaffed by the brutes till they reeled off, with linked hands, in a wild dance around the pile of victims. As the women leaped and sang, the men applauded and encouraged. Soon, the ring was broken, and, with a yell, each female leaped on the body of a wounded prisoner and commenced the final sacrifice with the mockery of lascivious embraces!

In my wanderings in African forests I have often seen the tiger pounce upon its prey, and, with instinctive thirst, satiate its appetite for blood and abandon the drained corpse; but these African negresses were neither as decent nor as merciful as the beast of the wilderness. Their malignant pleasure seemed to consist in the invention of tortures, that would agonize but not slay. There was a devilish spell in the tragic scene that fascinated my eyes to the spot. A slow, lingering, tormenting mutilation was practised on the living, as well as on the dead; and, in every instance, the brutality of the women exceeded that of the men. I cannot picture the hellish joy with which they passed from body to body, digging out eyes, wrenching off lips, tearing the ears, and slicing the flesh from the quivering bones; while the queen of the harpies crept amid the butchery gathering the brains from each severed skull as a bonne-bouche for the approaching feast!

After the last victim yielded his life, it did not require long to kindle a fire, produce the requisite utensils, and fill the air with the odor of human flesh. Yet, before the various messes were half broiled, every mouth was tearing the dainty morsels with shouts of joy, denoting the combined satisfaction of revenge and appetite! In the midst of this appalling scene, I heard a fresh cry of exultation, as a pole was borne into the apartment, on which was impaled the living body of the conquered chieftain’s wife. A hole was quickly dug, the stave planted and fagots supplied; but before a fire could be kindled the wretched [Pg 386] woman was dead, so that the barbarians were defeated in their hellish scheme of burning her alive.

I do not know how long these brutalities lasted, for I remember very little after this last attempt, except that the bush men packed in plantain leaves whatever flesh was left from the orgie, to be conveyed to their friends in the forest. This was the first time it had been my lot to behold the most savage development of African nature under the stimulus of war. The butchery made me sick, dizzy, paralyzed. I sank on the earth benumbed with stupor; nor was I aroused till nightfall, when my Kroomen bore me to the conqueror’s town, and negotiated our redemption for the value of twenty slaves.

-end quote-

Note there is interesting info here about the Kroo, as well. This could expand that part of the article. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:2956:8673:454C:742E (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have have hidden the quote you added to keep it from overwhelming this page (anyone can view the quote by clicking the "show" button). Théodore Canot was a slave trader who published a memoir. While extracts from that book may be used to illustrate some points about conditions on the West African coast where such points are supported by material from reliable sources, it is not itself a reliable source. (Mouser, Bruce L. (1979). "Théophilus Conneau: The Saga of a Tale". History in Africa. 6: 97–107. doi:10.2307/3171742. ISSN 0361-5413. discusses the various editions of the work, and how it has been manipulated to suit the tenor of the times.) A more useful source might be Holsoe, Svend E. "Theodore Canot at Cape Mount, 1841–47". Liberian Studies Journal. 4: 163–181., if someone can access it. There are other possible sources out there, mainly in French, which I have not examined. - Donald Albury 16:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Donald Albury. Anwegmann (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ok, but there are many other accounts, as mentioned above. They do not support the POV notion that the Liberians were not interested in the native customs, and did not seek to improve them. However, all references must be properly sourced, as usual. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:811E:8CBE:4AB5:907F (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Short Description

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Oddly, the same user has been editing and then reverting this article's short description over the past few weeks. Before they began this campaign, the short description for this article was Country on the Atlantic coast of West Africa. It has since been changed between Country on the West African coast and Country in West Africa, edited and reverted by the same user. This user did not explain why they sought to change the short description, why they reverted the changes they made, or which change they thought was the most appropriate. I am here submitting, then, that the short description for this article remain Country on the Atlantic coast of West Africa, in keeping both with similar nations in the area and the history of the page. That said, though, I do not care all that much what the short description is, as long as there is explanation behind it. So I am more than open to other ideas. I was told to bring this discussion to the article's talk page in light of the strange activity surrounding it lately. So here it is. Anwegmann (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

1910

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

USA bailed out Liberia, and took control of the country’s finances, army, and foreign affairs for a time. More about this? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:1C92:1F4E:69E6:2584 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

What reliable sources do you suggest using to support this? - Donald Albury 17:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I must second this request for sources. Beyond the loan President King negotiated (if that's the right word for it) with the US and UK governments, I am not familiar with anything that comes even close to what you have described here. Anwegmann (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
As above, where are your sources? BMB YT 500000 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's certainly not a smoking gun, so to speak, just a starting point:
[1]https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1911/d432
[2]https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1910/d731
[3]https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1911/d446
[4]https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch13subch4
[5]https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1912/ch69
[6]https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/fmhw_other/201/
[7]https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/15182750/1302667
This is perhaps the closest to what the OA was suggesting with regards to taking control:
[8]https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/229986355 58.80.201.106 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lots of primary sources. Original research is not accepted in WP. Independent, secondary sources would be needed for this. Donald Albury 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Section titles

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A user undid an attempt to change two subsection titles in the History section:

  1. Indigenous People → Antiquity: More accurately reflects the contents and relates the contents to a time period.
  2. Mande Expansion → Mande expansion: MOS:HEADCAPS.

I'm not 100% confifent that the latter is the best title choice, but the former is definitely only about prehistory, not Indigenous peoples. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The link that is put here for a goverment website is not safe! Averan Republic (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have temporarilly switched the link to the president's office while the eliberia.gov.lr site is not secure. - Donald Albury 19:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

USD use in Liberia

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

According to the Central Bank, the United States Dollar is used alongside the Liberian Dollar. Can anyone confirm this? If true, can someone add this to the infobox (as I could not figure this out myself)? Some Hecking Nerd (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

While Liberia is not listed as using the U.S. dollar, either formally or informally, in United States dollar#Countries that use US dollar, the source you cited does state that the U.S. dollar is legal tender in Liberia. There is a long history of the use of the U.S. dollar in Liberia. The Liberian dollar was pegged to the U.S. dollar, which also circulated, from 1847 until 1907. The U.S. dollar was official currency in Liberia from 1935 until 1943. Donald Albury 15:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe the U.S. dollar belongs in the infobox, but I have added its status as legal tender in the Economy section of the article. Donald Albury 15:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this move. The U.S. dollar is indeed used regularly in Liberia, but it is not the "official currency" of the nation, and as such, it does not belong in the infobox. Anwegmann (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please modify the History tab to include accuracy

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Americo Liberians ended the slave trade in the region that would come to be Liberia on the Woodward Coast. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40759642

The inland tribes were already practicing traditional customs of servitude and castes so compulsory labor was already happening amongst indigenous populations and it DIDN'T become slavery when Americo Liberians practiced it as well.

Americo Liberians and the True Whig Party also included mostly settlers because they were the ones that primarily occupied the urbanized coastal areas where the governance was first established until the 1940s. 100.34.132.112 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Source for religious affiliation

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The source cited for religious affiliation in 2020 in the infobox, [9], is an archived copy of a web page last updated in 2016, which offered projections of religious affiliation at ten year intervals starting in 2010. There is no indication of when the data the projections are based on was gathered. This is not a reliable source for religious affiliation in 2020. Donald Albury 12:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well said. I changed it to a more reliable source.121.91.34.223 (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Donald Albury 20:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Article issues

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"I have read the article and, as far as I know, all the related links to "Main article", "See also", "Further information", and "This section is an excerpt from", and I think it is a good read.
The article has been assessed as B-class but currently fails the B-class criteria (#1) with with editors listing sourcing issues, although some are minor, and some "potentially dated statements".
  • Categories the article is listed in:
Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2006
Articles containing potentially dated statements from November 2014
Articles lacking reliable references from November 2015
Articles with dead external links from September 2018
Articles with unsourced statements from September 2019, "citation needed"
Articles with dead external links from May 2020
Articles with unsourced statements from July 2020,
Articles lacking reliable references from May 2022
Articles with unsourced statements from February 2023
Articles lacking reliable references from February 2024
Articles containing potentially dated statements from November 2014
There are also some areas where a tag could be warranted like:
  • The last sentence in the fourth paragraph of the "Political formation" subsection.
  • The last sentence in the second paragraph of the "Mining" subsection.
  • Last sentence in the second paragraph of the "Ethnic groups" subsection and "better source needed" tags addressed.
  • Two sentence third paragraph in the "Religion" subsection
  • First sentence in the "Private universities" subsection. All the rest are sourced.
  • First paragraph in the "Culture" section.
  • Last sentence in the first paragraph and the second paragraph in the "Sport" subsection.
I will try to address some of these when I get the time. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Note: Reassess article to C-class per discussion.
edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Moved trimmed links here for any possible discussion.
Some things just grow by incremental edits. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 8 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Note: not relevant in this case: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Native names for Liberia

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I have copied the below conversation from User talk:Oreen.yousuf, as the user has ignored my suggestions that this needs to be discussed here, rather than on his talk page.

  Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Liberia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 00:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I only added a locale name of the country. You can find this at: https://st.unicode.org/cldr-apps/v#/nqo/T_Africa/ Oreen.yousuf (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • local
Oreen.yousuf (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
You didn't provide a citation to any source when you added that entry. The source you list in your reply above appears to be a user-generated source, which is not acceptable as a source in Wikipeida. Moreover, N'Ko is not the only language besides English spoken in Liberia. Why should only the name for Liberia in N'Ko be added to the infobox? While it might be worth adding a footnote or section to the article listing the names for the country in all the languages spoken there, such a list does not seem appropriate in the infobox, and all entries in such a list would have to be reliably sourced. Donald Albury 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The source I gave is from Unicode's Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR), which has a rigorous voting process by both the CLDR subcommittee and native speakers. The reason I only put N'Ko is because I could not, at the time, find other locale data for the other Liberian languages (however I just found the same for Vai, which I would like to include). The vetting process for CLDR data is rigorous because it is used for localization software for product distributions. Also, several other countries' pages have different languages' names for the country in the infobox Oreen.yousuf (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page. If we can verify the names in various languages, there is the question of if and how to present it in the article. I am opposed to including a list of names for the country in several languages in the infobox. As I suggested above, a section or a footnote might be appropriate for presenting the information, but I would like to see what other editors think of it. Donald Albury 20:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
But as I said, there are already many country articles displaying the country's name in different languages. Why should it be different for Liberia?
The name of Liberia in the Vai language is ꕞꔤꔫꕩ. You can see how this word redirects to the English article for Liberia here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Redirects_from_Vai-language_terms
And the N'Ko word can be verified either by the N'Ko Wikipedia: https://nqo.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DF%9F%DF%8C%DF%93%DF%8B%DF%99%DF%8C%DF%A6%DF%8A%DF%AB , or on this Yale website: https://web.library.yale.edu/notes-cataloging-nko-script Oreen.yousuf (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
First, no Wikipedia in any language may be used as a source in the English Wikipedia. The guideline at WP:USERG states that Wikipedias are not reliable sources. My advice to you is to make your arguments on the article talk page, which is where all discussions on article content should take place, so that other editors can note and participate. Donald Albury 18:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
You can see the same here: https://localizely.com/locale-code/vai-Vaii-LR/
And what of the Yale site I linked?
Also, these languages are almost nonexistent on the internet. Governments don't support their proliferation. The work done on the Vai and N'Ko Wikipedias are from dedicated activists of the language/script. Oreen.yousuf (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, again, why do other countries have different languages' words for the country but Liberia can't? France has it in French. Does this mean an article can only have the native language if it's official? But then there's Nigeria who has 3 languages. But they are "national languages". Is this the criteria? But then there's Uganda, which has 2 other non-official non-national languages that have their word for the country on the article. Oreen.yousuf (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

End of copied comments. - Donald Albury 18:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Open to anyone's comments on the topic. Several other countries' articles (stated above) have the name of the country in multiple languages. I do not see what is wrong with doing the same for Liberia Oreen.yousuf (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem with Liberia is that these are not official languages, and there are a large number of them. Non-English names are not included in the lead if they would overwhelm it, which in this case they would. CMD (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
But there are other country articles that have non-official languages' names of the language as I stated above. You could put other languages in a collapsible list like some articles do Oreen.yousuf (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please see Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Your argument that "other stuff exists" might be valid if there exists a consensus that many "native names" should be included in the infobox or lead of an article about a country. The presence of such lists in a few articles does not establish a Wikipedia-wide precedent that they should be included in other articles without discussion and consensus for each article. Indeed, the stated purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. It is possible that an examination by the wider community of the presence of such lists in a few articles might result in a consensus that such lists do not serve that stated purpose, and should be removed from the infobox of those articles. Donald Albury 14:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't realize this was about the infobox. The infobox is specifically intended to be reserved for official languages: "Country's name (usually full name) in its official/defacto language(s)". What might be an issue is what an "official language" is, countries can accord various languages different official statuses that might not map neatly onto the conceptions of other countries. If that is the case in Liberia, it is not evidenced in the article, which notes only that there are 27 non-English languages which are first languages for some percentage of Liberians. CMD (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, I just realized that the doc page for {{Infobox country}} includes three fields for the name of the country:
-conventional_long_name = (Formal or official full name of the country in English)
-native_name = (Country's name (usually full name) in its official/defacto language(s), hence in italics (double quotemarks))
-common_name = (Common name in English (used for wikilinks, captions, and to produce a default iso3166 code)),
which means, as you say, the native name of a country is the official name of the country. As the only official language in Liberia is English, by the definition of the inbox the "native name" of Liberia is "Liberia". - Donald Albury 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for leading me to the links. The contents of the infobox don't overwhelm a reader that doesn't actively click on it. The benefit of showing other languages in the infobox or lead is because people from Liberia (and other west African countries) use the English (or French) Wikipedia. What is the downside of representing the name of their country in their language? I also think it's better to include the names under the English name rather than in a demographics or etymology section as the reader is already thinking of the country's name when glancing at the English name Oreen.yousuf (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
If the name of the country is not officially in a language other than English, it doesn't belong in the infobox or the lede in English-language Wikipedia. Anwegmann (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you rephrase this? Do you mean if the language isn't official it shouldn't be in the infobox?
What about national or recognized language?
Also why is this the case? Oreen.yousuf (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Read the quote from the documentation for the country infobox that I posted above. It allows the formal or official name of the country in English, the name of the country in the official or defacto language of the country if it is not English (defacto means the most commonly or widely spoken language in the country if there is no official language), and/or the common name in English. It does not say anything about "national" or "recognized" languages. Please also see the "purpose of an infobox" that I linked to above, where it explains why the Wikipedia community has adopted a guideline for infoboxes as part of the Manual of Style that editors are expected to follow in contributing to articles. Donald Albury 19:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

number?

edit
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"The 16 officially recognized ethnic groups include the Kpelle, Bassa, Mano, Gio or Dan, Kru, Grebo, Krahn, Vai, Gola, Mandingo or Mandinka, Mende, Kissi, Gbandi, Loma, Dei or Dewoin, Belleh, and Americo-Liberians (or Congo people[a])"

I count to 17 here?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3032:303:4D8D:4BBE:B956:DEE4:615A (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources, such as the CIA Yearbook, do not count the Americo-Liberians as an ethnic group (see the list in the infobox at the top of the page). I haven't found a source for official recognition of the ethnic groups, although I gather they are census categories. Donald Albury 17:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberia&oldid=1256369414"