Misplaced Pages

Talk:Angolan Civil War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:10, 5 December 2007 editNeilN (talk | contribs)134,455 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Perspicacite; Was not spam. using TW← Previous edit Revision as of 00:38, 13 December 2007 edit undoGimmeBot (talk | contribs)Bots75,273 editsm GimmeBot updating Template:WP:1.0 per WP:VPT#Template:WP:Next edit →
Line 28: Line 28:
{{AfricaProject|class=GA|nested=yes}} {{AfricaProject|class=GA|nested=yes}}
}} }}
{{WP:1.0|v0.7=pass|class=GA|category=History|small=yes}} {{Template:WP:1.0|v0.7=pass|class=GA|category=History|small=yes}}


==Flag== ==Flag==

Revision as of 00:38, 13 December 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angolan Civil War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2
Good articleAngolan Civil War has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
November 18, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: African
WikiProject iconThis 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
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
African military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCuba Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cuba task list:

Task list

WikiProject iconSouth Africa
WikiProject icon
  • flagSouth Africa portal
  • This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
    ???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
    Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
    WikiProject iconAfrica
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. 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
    ???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

    Template:WP:1.0

    Flag

    In the info box, should the South African flag be the current flag or the flag at the time of the conflict? --Danny Reese 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    It should be the one that was flown at the time of the conflict-- 12oct06 Sponge1354

    Problems with the picture

    Wow, that is a horrible photo to use. First off, most of the writing is in Chinese. Secondly, Cabinda, which is formally part of Angola, is not included as such in the picture. Ouch. I say delete it.-Thomas.macmillan 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    Fair use rationale for Image:Fnlaflag.gif

    Image:Fnlaflag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    Disputed

    The article has many problems. For one thing it is incoherent by refering to persons without explaining who they are or their role. The timeline is jumps back and forth. Som attempts to begin to correct this was reverted: Please explain, there are many other things unsourced and these statemetns are not controversial and a necessary introduction.Ultramarine 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

    Deletion of sourced material

    Please explain this deletion of sourced material: Ultramarine 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    1. You are not adding sourced material. 2. You are moving events that took place in the 1970s out of the 1970s section. 3. Your previous statement on this talkpage indicated that you were only interested in causing disruption. Perspicacite 15:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    1. I were extensively adding sourced material, like "On January 15, 1975, the independence treaty was signed. Elections were to to be held within nine months and full independence were to be proclaimed on Novemver 11, 1975. 400,000 Portuguese departed during February-June 1975. Tensions quickly emerged and the coalition government collapsed on August 14." 2. Give example please. 3. What statement? Ultramarine 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    The example you just provided demonstrates why this content should not be added: it's vague, misspelled, and does not follow the reference style currently used. The international agreement is the Alvor Agreement. You misspelled "November." You did not mention either the author or the publication date of the book you are citing. Your grammar is also incorrect: "independence was to be proclaimed" not "were to be proclaimed." The statement I was referring to is immediately preceding this section. Perspicacite 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Spelling or reference style can be corrected. The exact details of the source could be easily found by clicking on the link. I can cite it in full details in this article if you prefer. If your only objections are spelling and reference style, I will correct these before adding back the material. Considering this, any objections to adding back the sourced material? Ultramarine 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    Post what you wish to add here with spelling and grammatical corrections and the same reference style. Provided it meets that burden I have no problem having it added to the article. Perspicacite 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    See here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3. Any objections to changing to this? Ultramarine 16:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yes... you have the same content in the introduction as in the separate section "The Civil War." I also do not understand why there is a separate section with that title, as the article deals solely with the civil war. Perspicacite 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    The introduction is a summary. It is supposed to repeat some of the material in the body. I changed the title to "The factions in the civil war"Ultramarine 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. You still have basic grammatical errors in the text. "were" instead of "was," missing periods, etc. Perspicacite 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    If you point them out, I will correct them. That is not a reason for excluding material.Ultramarine 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    At this point I'm going to have to suggest getting a third opinion because I truly do not see the point of adding the proposed content. Perspicacite 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    Another point, you said the Caetano government was quickly replaced by a Democratic government, but the National Salvation Junta ruled Portugal for two years. Perspicacite 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    The Junta quickly declared the intention to restore democracy and held elections in 1975. But we can certainly clarify this. Any other concrete objection? Ultramarine 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Made some corrections to clarify as per above. Anything else? Ultramarine 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    GAC Review

    1. Broad: Pass
    2. Factually accurate: Pass
    3. Neutral POV: Pass
    4. Images: Pass
    5. Stable: Pass
    6. Well-written: Pass

    Well written article all in all. Pass.Mitch 22:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

    GA Review

    I don't believe this article received an adequate review. It doesn't appear to meet the GA criteria. For that reason, I am nominating it for review at WP:GA/R. Please feel free to participate in the discussion there.

    Some of the issues I noticed in scanning the article:

    • Years in dates need to be wikified for user date preferences.
    • Copyrighted image needs a fair use rationale.
    • References need to be formatted according to WP:CITE with all available information included. LARA♥LOVE 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    Regards, LARA♥LOVE 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    • I, Perspicacite, am reposting the following note originally posted on WP:GAR:
    Angolan Civil War:
    Angolan Civil War (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
    (De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

    I don't believe this article received an adequate review. There is a copyright image which lacks a fair use rationale and a movie poster that is inappropriately being used in this article (the copyright on the image clearly states it is only appropriate for fail use when it is used to provide critical commentary on the film in question or the poster it self; additionally, the fair use rationale for this image should be specific to each article in which it is used, not a blanket FUR for all uses), the years are not wikified in full dates and some dates are not wikified at all, it's very stubby in places with many one-sentence paragraphs, there is a main article link to a redlink article, there are inconsistencies in formatting voting results (ie. 54-22 vs. 12/91), I believe the use of dashes needs to be corrected, it is in need of a good copy-edit, and the references are not consistently formatted correctly. LARA♥LOVE 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    Delist per nomination. The footnotes/citations in particular are a mess. Drewcifer 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

    If there is a problem with the movie image then it should just be removed - it's not important. Are the other images acceptable? The years I disagree with you on. There seems to be a drive to link to every year every time it appears an article. I linked to years the first time they appear in the article. If there's a specific requirement in the GA standards for linking to years please point it out. I'll remove the main article dead link. There is no inconsistency in the voting results. The second example you provided, 12/91, is not a vote. It's the name of a law: "Law 12/91." What's wrong with the dashes? Which sections need copy-editing? Up until I began converting the refs to Cite book a minute ago, all refs had the same formatting. Perspicacite 06:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

    I removed the movie image and replaced the main article link. Perspicacite 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    First, in response to your comment on my talk page, it's not delisted; that's the nomination at GA/R and the first !vote (not actually a vote, more of a recommendation).
    Okay, on to the article:
    • There is a copyrighted image (not the poster, which needs to be removed) that needs a fair use rationale.
    • The years need to be wikified for user date preferences. Some users choose to have their dates displayed as 2007-09-04, but the code is broken if the year is not wikified or if it is a piped link.
    • I corrected the dashes. Dashes between years and such should be N dashes.
    • The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the article. Currently, it's more of a definition.
    • As for the votes, I understand now. I thought it was saying the law was passed by a vote of 12/91, so disregard that.
    • A good copy-edit would condense the stubby paragraphs throughout the article. A sequence of one-sentence paragraphs doesn't look good.
    • As far as USD $ vs. US$, please see WP:$.
    Good luck with the article and best regards, LaraLove 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

    Issues have been addressed. Article will remain listed. Thank you and best regards. LaraLove 06:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    "ANC" involvement in Shaba I

    I intend to remove the reference to "African National Congress" because I've seen no evidence for the involvement of the South African anti-apartheid movement which is now the ruling political party in South Africa in the conflict. There is no evidence that the African National Congress ever conducted any military operations in, or from, Angola. I admit that there may be a reference in sources to "ANC" but, in this case, it refers to the Armée Nationale Congolaise, the Congolese armed forces from 1960-71, some of whose elements (especially the former Katangese gendarmerie) opposed to Mobutu moved across the border into Angola after he became President of Congo-Kinshasa. Kahuzi 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm pretty sure I mentioned it on your talkpage at the time, but in case I never did... yeah, that was a really stupid mistake on my part. Perspicacite 12:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

    Infobox image

    May I just ask, what is an image of a Croatian T-55 doing in the lead of the Angolan Civil War article? Bogdan 00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    The Spaniards assure me it's a Cuban-owned tank fighting in Angola. Perspicacite 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply. I guess it is possible that the originally Croatian tank (see here) was sold from the Croatian defense council to Cuba. Bogdan 01:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    Actually Bogdan, you were right, and I was wrong Spanish Misplaced Pages was wrong. Moved from User talk:Dynaflow and User talk:Perspicacite:

    Hi, I saw you removed the infobox image on Angolan Civil War. While you are correct in that the tank is Croatian, the picture is of combat in the Angolan Civil War. Cuba bought many tanks from Eastern Europe which it used in the 70s and 80s when it invaded Angola. Would you mind restoring it? If there is any question as to the accuracy of its placement, see the Spanish Misplaced Pages article - they also use it in the infobox there. Jose João 06:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    I removed it because it is of a Croatian T-55 at Barbara Range, an SFOR drive-around-and-blow-stuff-up area near Glamoč, in Bosnia. There is no apparent connection between that picture and the Angolan Civil War. --Dynaflow babble 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Really? How do you know the tank was in Glamoc? I added it based on what I found at the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Jose João 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    The winter-weight, rather un-Cuban-looking uniforms and the residual snow at higher elevations on the hillsides tipped me off, and the summary on the image page (Image:HVO Army T-55 Glamoc firing MG.jpg) confirmed it. I've also gone and removed the images from es.wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    Inexplicable reverts by User:Perspicacite

    Is there a justifiable reason for removing the conversion template (that converts metric measurements to US measure amongst other conversions) from our article?

    These are the two (unexplained) reversions: and

    Normally, I would ask the reverter, but he consistently removes my questions without appropriate response (eg: ) and I really don't wish to engage in an edit war. Equally I can not imagine what is controversial and unacceptable about providing alternative measurements. Alice.S 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    The edits by Alice.S seem bonafide to me. --Ezeu (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    Questions for User:Perspicacite

    Your very first edit upon returning from a 48 hour block for edit warring was to revert your fellow editors again with an edit summary of: "rv, mix of vandalism and unexplained removal of references (also vandalism?)".

    Please would you now quickly tell us exactly

    1. which references were removed (use the <nowiki></nowiki> mark-up to precisely specify here)
    2. what the "vandalism" was
    3. why you have removed the conversion template (that converts metric measurements to US measure amongst other conversions) from our article again? Alice.S 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Let's see...
    • Number one, you are one person so you should not be referring to yourself in the plural.
    • Number two, you shouldnt be editing this article because..
    • This was vandalism. Do you really want to dispute that that's vandalism? Really? Jose João 22:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please would you answer the questions so that we can progress. Either references were removed or they were not. If you do not address yourself to the 3 questions I posed, it must be assumed that your edit summary was false and you will then require alternative justifications for your revert(s). Alice.S 22:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please refrain from restoring vandalism to Rhodesia and using a sockpuppet to vandalize Angolan Civil War. If you continue, you will be blocked. Jose João 22:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please answer the questions so that we can progress. Either references were removed or they were not. If you do not address yourself to the 3 questions I posed, it will be assumed that your edit summary was false and you are just attempting diversionary tactics. You have made a request for the Arbitration Committee to examine my behaviour and if I have indeed been engaging in the sins you describe, they will deal with it. Until then, if you can not answer any of the three questions I posed above you will require alternative justifications for your revert(s). Alice.S 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    You really should have been banned when you knowingly restored vandalism to Rhodesia. If you get away with it here, I will eat my hat. Jose João 23:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    I am not aware of knowingly restoring vandalism on our Rhodesia article. Now would you please stick to this article and your reversions and please answer the questions so that we can progress. Either references were removed or they were not. If you do not now address yourself to the 3 questions I posed, your edit summary was false and you are just attempting diversionary tactics. You have made a request for the Arbitration Committee to examine my behaviour and if I have indeed been restoring vandalism , they will deal with it. Until then, if you can not answer any of the three questions I posed above you will require alternative justifications for your revert(s). Alice.S 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

    Despite not being able to provide any justification for damaging and inexplicable reverts, edit warring has continued today: Alice.S 18:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    Please stop making test edits to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism, which, under Misplaced Pages policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Jose João 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Perspicacite alias Jose João: That template is not intended to be used on article discussion pages (or for regular users either). Please specify exactly what the vandalism was that you believe you were countering when you reverted here again and why you keep removing relevant cited information and useful conversion templates. Alice.S 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    1. Black Book of Communism p. 696
    Categories: