Talk:Angolan Civil War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angolan Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Angolan Civil War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Section on ethnic groups?
During the civil war, all sides were primarily supported by one of the three largest ethnic groups in the country. For example, the Mbundus who mostly lived on the coastal areas and larger cities supported the MPLA and the mostly rural, less wealthy Obimbundus supported UNITA. While the Civil War was not motivated by ethnic hatred, there was definitely a wealth inequality between the groups that the article doesn't go into as much detail as it could.
GA Reassessment
Angolan Civil War
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Consensus to delist. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
GA from 2007. There's some uncited sections and a refimprove tag for roots of the the conflict section that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist - "Ethnic divisions" and "Portuguese colonialism" subsections lack any references, and perhaps a few dozen other sentences lack full referencing. Prose like The Angolan Civil War was notable due to ... needs to be reworked, while statements like demining operations expected to finish by 2014 betray the outdatedness of the article. The Aftermath and "In popular culture" sections are not cohesive, and the latter might be worth axing entirely as a collection of trivia. The citation style is mixed and some books lack page number cites. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist Executive summary: this is an incoherent article. I have not compared it yet with the original promotion that might be a point from which to start anew. the Roots of the conflict section is not supported by what follows - ie it is suggested that root of the conflict is ethnic (tribal) but the body of the article suggests that it is more socio-political (city communist v rural non-communist). There are clearly compounding events in neighbouring "countries" but the article does not present this context (eg the Namibia-South Africa-Angola dynamic). The article describes three main divisions to the conflict. Arguably, each phase should be dealt with as: issues, conflict, resolution and analysis (or similar). However, the article structure does not follow this but is decadic. This is the top level article for the conflict. It should deal with events at the top level in detail. It doesn't. At places, it reports "support" by other nations without describing the nature of such support. At other places, it reports minutiae (events) without establishing context - eg, how is fleeing 60 km relevant to the greater scheme of things? The article is visually/spatially inadequate. Many places are mentioned but their spatial significance is not established. Then, we have an infobox from hell. It tries to capture too much and fails to capture anything. I could perhaps be a bit more specific but much less brief. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Mercenary nationalities in the infobox too granular
The infobox has become rather crowded due to the addition of the many different nationalities of mercenaries serving on both sides. It's also quite unusual, as none of the other contemporary conflict articles have the individual nationalities of participating mercenaries listed. I'm in favor of removing all sub-sections from the infobox accordingly, and restricting the "combatants" section solely to the national governments which contributed military personnel. Katangais (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, who made that unusual edit, once added 8 Brazilians to the infobox as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angolan_Civil_War&diff=prev&oldid=1102573631
The list of the random Brazilians in his bizarre edit:
Joelmir Campos de Araripe Macedo Délio Jardim de Matos Octávio Júlio Moreira Lima Sócrates da Costa Monteiro Lélio Viana Lobo Mauro José Miranda Gandra Walter Werner Bräuer Carlos de Almeida Baptista - Most recently he added Brazilian politician Élcio Álvares to the infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angolan_Civil_War&diff=prev&oldid=1239310691
- It gets even weirder, he has cross-wiki spammed the infobox with Brazil on every language version of this article, which has 45 language versions. Mexico too: https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=安哥拉内战&diff=prev&oldid=76530056
- Anyway, an admin agreed with you here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=1266960356 so you might as well remove it. 91.193.18.43 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Gbadolite Declaration source 404 Not Fund
Gbadolite Declaration at #Angolan_Civil_War#Ceasefire returns status code 404 Not Found.
=> add Gbadolite Declaration (archive.org) Absolutelynotsteve (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
North Korean military involvement
The information about North Korean military mission has been repeatedly removed from the infobox of this article. This information is backed up by six sources. It was initially removed on the basis that they were "non-academic" sources, with the contributor responsible declaring that The Economist and Deutsche Welle were not reliable, but then two book sources by James and Polack, respectively, were inexplicably removed in subsequent edits as well. This was justified first on the basis that North Korean military involvement was not covered in the body of the article, and subsequently that the information is "poorly documented" and "uncertain", despite the fact that these sources deliberately contradict this. It seems to be a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT being used to justify an edit war, as opposed to a legitimate content dispute. Katangais (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2026
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would just like to add a hyperlink to a Wikipedia page that is relevant, the Cabinda War, as it's a page I'm editing right now. -
The Cabinda War Orangecasio (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Question: Where specifically do you want the hyperlink? The exact wording "Cabinda War" isn't in the article right now. InfernoHues (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hello, under the 'see also' section. Orangecasio (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Done InfernoHues (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! Orangecasio (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hello, under the 'see also' section. Orangecasio (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
