Talk:Senegambia Confederation

Regarding wikification - question

Hello, wiki community. I was wondering if someone could explain to me what need to done to this article in terms of wikification. I did the last major addition to it and I want to know what needs to be done. --chemica 08:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedic?

• "Had it succeeded, it would not only have solved economic tensions between the neighboring countries but given new hope to the concept of Pan-Africanism." Is that really encyclopedia-worthy? I'd say no. Oldkinderhook 21:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Cape Verde or Cap-Vert

"French trade centered on the Senegal River and in the Cape Verde region" --History section

Cape Verde is a former Portuguese colony located off the western coast of Africa and named after Cap-Vert, a peninsula in Senegal. Both of them mean Green Cape. I think French didn't center in Cape Verde but in Cap-Vert. But I don't have any references right now. --Kurihaya (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Loose Confederation?

I thought that a confederation itself is loose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.9.101 (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not much info...

Where is the basic country data block? You know, capital, government type, official language(s), location, establishment date, etc. There are a lot of questions that pop into mind, now that I know that this Senegambia thing existed. Like, why is this not listed at UN member states? Did it have a flag of its own? What was its currency? etc...Mátyás (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't written it yet. This is a volunteer effort. Please research and expand this article if you so desire. T L Miles (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, it wouldn't be on the UN member states listing, as a confederacy is not generally considered a country, but more like a tight alliance. And you are right, if I would be really interested, I would find the time and the resources to make this article more complete, but the thing is I'm not.Mátyás (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the Senegambia Confederation never lasted long enough to function like a unified region. There was never a capital. There was a very short-lived legislative body. It is not a UN member state because it lasted only a few years so they would not have applied for membership. The Senegambia Confederation was more of an experiment in shared governance between Sénégal and the Gambia that failed. --chemica (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandwich Sovereignties

What is this? It says in the article to see "Sandwich Sovereignties" "above", but this is the only mention of the term in the article... Tomer^talk 14:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the first version of the article 2004. The "see Sandwich Sovereignties above," was part of an old style inline citation that was cut off when a ref tag was added. It a sub heading in the referenced work, I believe. T L Miles (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nkrumah's Ghana?

It says Senegal got threats from Nkrumah's Ghana but he had been both dead and out of office for a long time by then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.221.197 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Senegambia Confederation → Senegambia – The common country name is Senegambia, the Senegambian Confederation is the official name.relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the move since Senegambia redirects here anyway but note the existence of Senegambia (Dutch West India Company), Senegambia and Niger, Senegambian stone circles, and Senegambian languages that have no relation to the entity in this article. I'll make a dab page if needed. —  AjaxSmack  03:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The term "Senegambia" is predominantly used as a generic term for the geographical region, and not a specific organization, institution or entity. If anything, I would stop redirecting "Senegambia" here and direct it to as (as yet non-existant) "Senegambia (region)" page, of which the confederation would be a disambiguation. Walrasiad (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality disputed?

What exactly is disputed in the "End of the Confederation" section? The POV tag was set in April 2012 without any explanation, attempt at discussion, or then-recent edit to cause this tag. Varana (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Gambian POV

@Rulis1: This back-and-forth is senseless. I will again clearly outline why your edits are problematic: You are changing sentences to remove anything which might suggest that the Senegambia Confederation's end could be partially attributed to Senegal, including:

• "the Senegalese government feared national instability caused by uprisings in either the Gambia or the Casamance region" was removed completely
• "Throughout the integration process, support came primarily from the two governments and their social elites; neither the Senegalese nor the Gambian people at large were particularly interested in integration." was changed to "Throughout the integration process, support came primarily from the Senegalese government. The Gambian people were not particularly interested in integration."
• "Once the threat of political instability began to dissipate, both sides began to move back to their traditional fears and stereotypes of the other." was changed to "Once the threat of political instability began to dissipate, they began to move back to their traditional fears and stereotypes towards Senegal."
• "The union had both pragmatic and ideological elements. Because it was created in response to security concerns, when that threat was believed finished, the confederation's momentum began to die. Senegal unilaterally pulled out its troops from the Gambia when it was threatened by Mauritania" became "The union had both pragmatic and ideological elements. Because it was created in response to security concerns, when that threat was believed finished, the interests of the Gambian government shifted. The Gambian president Dawda Jawara proposed rotating the posts of the vice-president and president. This proposal however violated the agreement between the two states. Additionally the Gambia showed no aversion to a separatist movement in Casamance, southern Senegal with the latest incident being Yahya Jammeh supporting the rebels to destabilize the region."
• The following parts were largely deleted and replaced with "By helping separatist movements in the south of Senegal most importantly the Movement of Democratic Forces in Casamance, the Gambia contributed to the armed Casamance conflict".

None of these changes are supported by the sources. All of the old claims are attributed to reliable sources. To support your changes, you just inserted "Le pacte du 29 decembre 1981 instituant la Confederation de la Senegambie", a document from 1982. As outlined above, however, almost all of your changes involve the collapse of the Senegambia Confederation in the years after 1982, particularily the events of 1989.
I kindly ask you to restore the pervious version which was supported by the sources, and to stop changing the article in a way which only blames Gambia. Applodion (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That part with the birth and end of the confederation should be deleted because there are two sides of the story. If I am anti Gambian so are you anti Senegal. That article didn't relate the real story about the beginning and end of the confederation except it was written from a Gambian point of view. So in order to stay neutral the best solution is either to leave that part out or to write both sides of the story. Rulis1 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rulis1: You need sources, however. If you want to add Senegal's viewpoint, feel free to do so, but only by providing actual references. You cannot just change sentences and add a source from 1982 for stuff which happened in 1989. Applodion (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to be neutral and less emotional. Those sources added prior to me are dated as well. You are very biased. Why do you think you can tell me what source I can add or not? Nobody is telling you you what sourced you can add or not. You are not only biased but entitled. I will of course add Senegal´s point of view. Rulis1 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rulis1: You cannot use a book from 1982 to support claims about 1989 not because I am "biased [and] entitled", but because people cannot look into the future, okay? A book from 1982 cannot have said anything about events in 1989. And in regards to "Why do you think you can tell me what source I can add or not?", please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. I am not making the rules, I am following them.
So I ask you again: Please revert your changes and restore the sourced information; if you want to add other viewpoints, just provide sources which support them. Then we can write it like: "According to researcher X, Senegal did Y, but researcher Z argued that this was wrong". As of now you are not adding "Senegal's point of view", but just deleting stuff and blaming Gambia for everything. Applodion (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You can defend your point of view without being compelled to lie by pretending I am blaming Gambia. I am not blaming but you on the other hand are blaming Senegal. You are welcome to revert it. I will add as I already stated. Rulis1 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Lie? I cited all the different instances of Gambia being put into the wrong by your version of the text. Does "Gambian people were not particularly interested in integration", "they began to move back to their traditional fears and stereotypes towards Senegal", "the interests of the Gambian government shifted [...] Additionally the Gambia showed no aversion to a separatist movement in Casamance, southern Senegal with the latest incident being Yahya Jammeh supporting the rebels to destabilize the region", and "the Gambia contributed to the armed Casamance conflict" sound neutral to you?
And how is "You are welcome to revert it. I will add as I already stated" meant? Do you want to say that you have no further intention in discussing this? Look, I have no problem with adding more sources to the article, but you cannot just say I don't like this and use that as a reason to completely alter an article. Again: the sources support the original version; the new version is currently based on your claim that this represents the Senegalese viewpoint, without even providing an actual source confirming this as being the Senegalese viewpoint (the 1982 document does not say anything about the Senegalese views in 1989). Applodion (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I said I will add Senegal´s point with source as stated above. Rulis1 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rulis1: So... should I revert the article or not? Applodion (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep go ahead Rulis1 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rulis1: Well, now I understand what you intended. Though better than the previous changes, Wikipedia articles are not split into "perspectives", especially as the so-called "Gambian perspective" actually covers the research of regular, nonpartisan researchers. We will need rewrite all of that. I also noticed that some of your new content once again has no proper source. Applodion (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So you really want to tell me that those researchers are non partisan whiler those I provided are partisan? well to me the so called non partisan researchers are partisan. Don't you think its best to leave out those so called partisan and no partisan researchers out? Because as I already said there are 2 sides of the story. What you consider as non partisan , is partisan to other. Rulis1 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We can write it together as suggested. Rulis1 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rulis1: No, I don't want to suggest that your sources are partisan. What I am saying is that reliable researchers blame both sides for the collapse of the confederation. That's not a partisan viewpoint. And again: Wikipedia does not work in the way you want it to; we cannot leave out those "partisan and no partisan researchers" because Wikipedia is all about sources.
I am going to be honest here. I do not care at all who was responsible for the failure of the Senegambia Confederation. What I care about is that the reality of events is reflected; and there are not ten different viewpoints of reality, there is one reality. Per Wikipedia's rules, if reliable sources say X, we have to say X as well even if we do not agree with it. Your additions, overall, do not reflect the sources - and the new ones you added also do not support what you are inserting into the article. The stuff you reference to the African American Studies Center, for example, does not seem to match the source. You can add stuff, but it has to be based on sources, not your own opinions. Applodion (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I propose the following: You explain here what you think is wrong, and you provide a specific source which supports your position. For example: "Another important factor in the collapse of the confederation lies in the lack of support, trust or consensus of the Gambians towards the confederation." From where did you get this information? Not from the "African American Studies Center" article, as far as I can see.
And for other content which you have already added, please give more exact page numbers. For example, you added "The Senegalese, were financing 80 percent of the expenses of the confederation, of which four-fifths went to military expenses, without deriving any interest from it", sourced to Bodian's L'éclatement de la Sénégambie, but the page is missing here. Applodion (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I also propose one more thing: next week, from about Tuesday/Wednesday, I will have a bit more free time at my hand. I will then seek out more sources myself, specifically those dealing with the Senegalese interests. Using these, I will help to expand the article; then we will see whether it has become more neutral from your perspective. Ok? Applodion (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

These sources were not my own opinion but from scholars like the already added scholars.

You are asking for respective scholars but some of the given sources are either from a Gambian point of view , or the link is not working or they are not even dealing with the subject but they are still there as a reference, how come?

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86S00596R000200800001-0.pdf

http://ww25.download-space.com/download/book/The%20Gambia-Senegal%20Border:%20Issues%20in%20Regional%20Integration.html?aff.id=11556&dp=5ecad5d00a5df400017b82f0&subid1=20220709-0627-2019-973f-6a2468e43edc Rulis1 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok lets wait next week. Rulis1 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those links work, you need to demonstrate reliable and checkable sources for the edits. Watercheetah99 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Rulis1 was actually pointing out that these links don't work; anyway, they were not among the sources which we discussed as being allegedly anti-Senegalese. Applodion (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Applodion those links were not added by me, they were already there and are not working. Since we are arguing about sources, we should take those misleading links into consideration for the simple reason that they are still being used as a reference although not related to the article. Also lets not turn this discussion into an anti senegalese or anti Gambian debate. This is about editing the article in a non biased point of view. Rulis1 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Rulis1, I was trying to defend you here. Watercheetah99 was the one who thought that you had added those links, I said that you had not. Applodion (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I know, I mentioned you because I am discussing with you and not that Watercheetah99 who is here just to talk nonsense without reading. Rulis1 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rulis1: Ok. In regards to the links, I will try to find archived versions or replacements. Applodion (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

ok Rulis1 (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rulis1: Sup, I just wanted to inform you that I have started expanding / improving the article. I am far from done, and this proccess will probably need a few days. Regardless, I wanted to ask your opinion on these initial changes. I have removed some of the more suggestive language, and included stuff which the Gambians did to sink the union, while also outlining the large amount of resources Senegal invested into the united military. Applodion (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this version is less biased than the previous as well. I will have to do further researches on my part too so that we can see what can be rectified if any. This will take some times. Thank you for your honesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rulis1 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Falsely cited changes to the article

Just to repeat the issue with the previous changes: If you want to change the article, you need to properly cite the changes.

• The Gambia – Expert Briefing - has no page number
• Senegambia and the Atlantic Slave Trade - also, no page numbers are provided
• How We Built the Gambia Army - self-published book, cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works and WP:ABOUTSELF
• L'éclatement de la Sénégambie - pages 277-286 are provided, but those are the pages of the entire journal section
• Overthrow and later years - no pages
• "After the end of the Confederation Gambian concern for security became reality. Yahyah Jammeh seized power by overthrowing former president Dawda Jawara" - this addition is unneccessary, as it is already mentioned in the "Legacy" section
• It's still unclear how the addition of the rosewood exports is related to this article.

Applodion (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@FotilR: Please repond to these issues with your changes. I assume that we can find a compromise, but you have to properly cite your sources. Applodion (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You are not entitled to decide whhether my sources satisfy your biased views on this subject. All the points you mentinoed are well documented but you are not willing to accept it since they are not according to your biased views. FotilR (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@FotilR: Those are not my "biased views", these are Wikipedia's rules. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the origin of information has to be clear, and certain sources are not considered reliable. You cannot just say that your claim's evidence can be found somewhere in a hundreds-pages book. Just list the pages, and remove the self-published book. I'm not asking for much in this regard, I'm only requesting that you comply with the rules every editor has to adhere to. Applodion (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@FotilR: Could you please respond? Applodion (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Already responded. FotilR (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@FotilR: Seeing as you do not want to engage with my request, I have requested a third opinion. Applodion (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that I am not the only one who has noticed that your coverage of the Senegambia confederation is biased. The discussion above made exactly the same reproach. FotilR (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@FotilR: No, they did not. Rulis1's request had the opposite leaning to yours, and we were able to work out a compromise. In contrast, you have even refused to add page numbers to books you added as sources. Applodion (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest a non biased coverage because many sections you presented are mostly from the Gambian perspective. It would be better if it was neither from both the Senegalese nor Gambian perspectives. FotilR (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@FotilR: Except this was never a matter of "perpective". I only requested that you didn't delete sourced content, to add page numbers for your claims and to remove a self-published source. Then we could have found a compromise. Yet you have responded -from the start- with what borders on personal attacks, accusing me of being "a liar", "very abusive", "biased", and spreading "false propaganda". Applodion (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here in response to the request for a third opinion. The policy Wikipedia:Civility requires editors to collaborate without attacking each other personally; continued incivility may cause one to be blocked from editing. FotilR, it seems you are frustrated at having some changes reverted by another editor, which is understandable, but it seems you have jumped inappropriately to accusations of lying and bias and abuse and WP:OWN. As WP:BURDEN notes, it the responsibility of the editor adding content to support that with a solid citation to a reliable source. Any content with missing or questionable sourcing can be removed by any editor until the question is resolved. That is far from abusive; that is actually a very helpful activity which Wikipedia encourages. It helps make sure the facts we are conveying to readers are true, and the opinions we convey are accurately attributed. On the other side, the phrase "Falsely cited" in the header of this section is also a bit sharp-elbowed; it's unclear these citations are false so much as incomplete.

Whatever bias you think other editors might have, accusing them of letting their bias influence their editing is pretty much never useful, and can be perceived as a personal attack, which is prohibited. Editors with every different perspective are welcome and encouraged to edit here. I find that when I collaborate with editors who disagree with me in one way or another, when we discuss our reasons and work together to look at the text and sources in detail, the resulting articles are stronger in terms of reliability and neutrality. We challenge each other to do better by pointing out the problems in each other's edits and assertions.

Some content which does not seem to be in dispute (like link formatting in the Government section) is being switched back and forth needlessly. It would be helpful to limit reverts only to content that's actually in dispute rather than just rolling back wholesale.

How We Build the Gambia Army should indeed be treated as a self-interested publication. It's suitable for claims about the authors, but not really about the state of the Gambian Army. If this is to stay in at all, that opinion should be attributed to the authors, but not reported as fact. If you think there are other sources which would support this claim, it could also be tagged {{better source needed}} if that could be located within a reasonable amount of time.

Though technically unverifiable content can be removed at any time, perhaps the sources that are missing pages could be tagged {{page needed}}, with the understanding that if they are not supplied within a reasonable amount of time and this results in the content being unverifiable, the content will be removed. FotilR, would you be able to commit to getting the missing page numbers within the next week or two?

The note about rosewood seems to be a detail in the claim that one legacy of the breakup is an increase in cross-border smuggling by militant groups that arose as a consequence. The text as written seemed less than neutral, so I cleaned it up and put it in a more logical place. The cited source does not draw a connection between rosewood smuggling and the MDFC or that smuggling is still big business because the MDFC paved the way. It seems plausible that they are connected, given that the conflict continues, but to avoid violating Wikipedia:No original research we need to find a source that makes that connection. Otherwise, it's possible this is just everyday smuggling that happens in lots of countries, and the note on this page is subject to removal as not having established relevance to the topic of the article.

I agree the note about Yahyah Jammeh is redundant. I have dropped the duplicate sentences but kept the redundant source. -- Beland (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I see in this edit that the claim attributed to the self-published book was actually referenced to a different, presumably more reliable source (Dwyer), except for the year (1985) which was added. 1983 was also changed to 1985 elsewhere in the article. These changes should be reverted unless another source can be identified that says 1985. Does 1983 come from Dwyer? That date could use an inline citation at the end of the sentence.

Some other citations in the older version have also been replaced by different sources, even though the original claims have been retained. That is somewhat irregular. Those sources should be put back in unless someone can point to a reason why the new sources are more reliable or otherwise preferred. -- Beland (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: Thank you for your response! I agree that my wording "falsely cited" was problematic, but I also noticed what you pointed out in the last part of your statement regarding diff: FotilR did not just add claims/sources, they also removed sourced sections, shuffled content around without proper attribution. Regarding 1983 - yes, Dwyer (a respected scholar) outright says that the Gambian National Gendarmerie was created in 1983. There are also other problematic changes, such as "neither the Senegalese nor the Gambian people at large were particularly interested in integration" to "The Gambian people were not particularly interested in integration" or the deletion of a section on Senegal's complex motives, replaced with "Senegal wanted more access to the Gambia river and unity in trade policies". However, I wanted to address the issues over proper sourcing first before engaging in further topic discussions, as the former already posed enough problems. Applodion (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: FotilR is not responding to the arguments and comments. How should i proceed? Applodion (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Since two of us agree, I would recommend you put that date back to 1983, undo the scrambling of sources, and undo the problematic changes you mentioned.

How serious are the missing page numbers? Like, do you doubt the claims being cited and definitely need to verify against the source, or would it be fine to leave them tagged as missing page numbers? If you are attempting to verify, perhaps it would be worth a quick web search to see if key verifying phrases can be found (often Google Books will give you a preview of search phrase matches). -- Beland (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)