Talk:Madagascar

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The small island of Nosy Boroha off the northeastern coast of Madagascar has been proposed by some historians as the site of the legendary pirate utopia of Libertalia.[62] ↓

The small island of Nosy Boraha (Île Sainte-Marie) off the northeastern coast of Madagascar is believed to be where the English pirate Henry Every founded his kingdom and reigned as Pirate King or Emperor. ^[1][2] Antsiranana Bay (Diego Suarez Bay) in northern Madagascar is rumored to be the site where the French pirate Misson founded his legendary pirate utopia, Libertalia. ^[3] Fear The Fury (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done It's clear that the existing text was conflating the two pirate kingdoms.

At present the history section is effectively a history of failed European attempts to establish colonies rather than of the island, and does a very poor job of summarising the main article History of Madagascar. Even looking back at the version that got promoted to FA it barely touches upon pre-19th century history, and only mentions the Sakalava as "chiefdoms" of Menabe and Boina, when they controlled an empire controlling the whole of the west coast! I'll have a go at rewriting some of it soon Kowal2701 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gasybeaugosse2020, I have concerns regarding your additions to the history section. Most of it is uncited (per WP:NOR we shouldn't be adding uncited info), and imo violates WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION. This is a featured article, meaning it's gone through rigorous editing and assessment and is largely deemed 'perfect' (albeit this was done over a decade ago), please be more cautious when editing FAs. I think we ought to restore an earlier revision of the history section (such as 13 March 2025) and add a subsection expanding on the current "Formation of Malagasy kingdoms" one? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Gonna be working on it here if anyone wants to help Kowal2701 (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of the relevant sections in History of Madagascar are unsourced or hardly sourced, so this article would be expected to do a poor job of summarising it. The former Arab and European contacts subsection should be reworked to integrate internal and external history that includes the polity formations, but it will have to be made from scratch rather than relying on the main article. CMD (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Fortunately it shouldn't be as hard as it looks (famous last words) because we have the General History of Africa chapters (already used a bit), Madagascar: a short history (2009) (which reviews call a major reference work), and country-wide entries in Encyclopedia of African History. Unfortunately I'm only familiar with the wider literature on the west coast. I was thinking of renaming the Arab and European contacts section to "Formation of early kingdoms" and covering it in that context like you say Kowal2701 (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I am hopeful that if this is a distinct periodisation, that such a periodisation will have a common name in the sources. CMD (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

It's roughly distinct, but there isn't a term or common name per se. A short history has chapter 3 "Royalty and the Rise of Kingdoms" covering 1600-1699 ("The Slave-Trader kings" for 1700-1816). GHoA vol. 5 (16th-18th centuries) page 70 says By 1500 the population on the island was still very mobile and had not effectively settled and not all the land was yet under human control. By 1800 most of these lands had been organized into states of various sorts. (its chapter on Madagascar is just "Madagascar and the islands of the Indian Ocean"). Maybe "Rise of kingdoms and the slave trade" for 1500-1800? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

"Rise of kingdoms" seems concise yet flexible enough, it's definitely on the right theme and roughly synonymous with other formulations such as "state formation" or "political evolution". CMD (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of books written by Grandidier, Deschamps, Guillain, Flacourt, Rochon, Dubois,... There are a lot in French. Make a bit work translating them. Gasybeaugosse2020 (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Grandidier collection des ouvrages anciens help a lot for ancient history of Madagascar from 1500-1800s. This book is a collection of writtings by early travellers in Madagascar. Gasybeaugosse2020 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources are mostly in French

Most history of Madagascar sources are mostly French. Check them. Gasybeaugosse2020 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Deschamps is good, I've used Lombard a bit before. But we shouldn't be using primary sources like Grandidier, Flacourt etc. they're best handled by experts (WP:PRIMARY, WP:CSA also). The only overview French-language source I see is Deschamps 1972 which is a little old. I can't really read French unfortunately Kowal2701 (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The like of Flacourt, Luis Marianno, Souchu de Rennefort and Drury are eyewitnesses Gasybeaugosse2020 (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

"The small island of Nosy Boroha off the northeastern coast of Madagascar has been proposed by some historians as the site of the legendary pirate utopia of Libertalia.[61]" This description is incorrect. (see#Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2025) Fear The Fury (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed mention of it since most scholars consider it fiction Kowal2701 (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the above post of mine proposed rewriting rather than removal.In April this year, I submitted an edit request, and User:Largoplazo edited the article based on that request (). However, it seems that the description was removed at some point. Fear The Fury (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Libertalia is not merely a fiction. For example, the renowned historian Marcus Rediker devotes an entire chapter to Libertalia in Pirates : terror on the high seas, from the Caribbean to the South China Sea. Furthermore, the political commentator Gabriel Kuhn examines Libertalia's political thought in Life Under the Jolly Roger: Reflections on Golden Age Piracy. In recent years, David Graeber published Pirate Enlightenment, or the Real Libertalia. The historian Alexandre Audard discusses Libertalia in Libertalia. une republique des pirates a madagascar - interpretations d un mythe (xviie-xxie siecle) with a more critical attitude than Graeber.

Therefore, there is no need to remove the mere two-line description regarding Libertalia.--Fear The Fury (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

European Piracy in the Indian Ocean (2022) in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History (a tertiary source that summarises the literature) says (bold mine)

The most significant work on European piracy in the Indian Ocean is perhaps the General History of the Pyrates (“GHP”), first published in 1724 by a Captain Charles Johnson, whose identity has been the subject of much scholarly debate ever since, with early scholars landing on Daniel Defoe as the author (the GHP is still indexed under Defoe in many libraries). More than a “history,” the best-selling publication was a medley of news reports, witness testimony, trial records, personal correspondence, manuscript sources, as well as outright fabrications and literary inventions. A second volume came out in 1728 and included many chapters on pirates active in the Indian Ocean, including Henry Every, Thomas Tew, William Kidd, and Samuel Burgess, but also invented figures like Captain Misson, and a fictitious pirate utopia called Libertalia, which has caused no small amount of confusion and misrepresentations that have been repeated in various secondary sources over the years. It must be noted that the GHP is not a historical primary source but is a fabulous literary one, and anyone studying European piracy in the Indian Ocean should be familiar with it.

Kowal2701 (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my previous statement was a bit unclear. What I meant to say is: "Libertaria itself is a fiction, but its various aspects are (even as fiction) the subject of study by modern scholars." Fear The Fury (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

My bad I musunderstood. I'm not sure how appropriate it is to have an aspect of fiction discussed in a history section of a country. While piracy in Madagascar is common in popular mythology, they were only there from c. 1670-1720, and I wouldn't say it's due more than a sentence or two here (not including discussion of Ratsimilaho, Thomas Tew, and the Betsimisaraka Confederation) given it's an rather concise overview. I'm currently working on a rewrite of the section, we can discuss this again when that's done. Atm I'm thinking an {{efn}} note discussing Libertalia would be appropriate, since it's a bit tangential to the actual history? Kowal2701 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• I've added the rewrite, one issue is length, the article's jumped from ~12,500 to 13,000. I've tried to use notes to trim. Will start the FAR in a few days if there aren't any concerns, thanks Kowal2701 (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking of taking this to WP:FAR given the above regarding the history section, outside of that there's also 10 unreferenced sentences/clauses at the end of paragraphs, which doesn't fill me with hope the whole of the rest is cited to sources despite one coming after it. It's also got an empty Media section. For an article that passed back in 2012 it seems to have been kept up to date reasonably well, it might be worth skimming through some recent sources though. I can try to work on History but I doubt I'll get it to FA level, at the very least it'll need copyediting Kowal2701 (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Added CNs and merged the empty media section as a duplicate Kowal2701 (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I've had a closer look at the Government section following recent events, and that's far off current FA standards as well. It likely needs a structural overhaul, in addition to new sources. CMD (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, think I'm gonna start the FAR after implementing changes to the history section, that way people can check it and work on the other problems Kowal2701 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The entire section on Benyovszky has no references, reads like it's full of exaggerations, and is significantly at odds with the main page for the subject of the section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Benyovszky 2601:601:907C:86A0:D677:E55D:2A8E:B45F (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

There were two references at the end of the section.

On the other hand, it seemed like undue weight. The section gave three times as much coverage to him as France does to Napoleon. Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

several media outlets indicate that an army officer named Michael Randrianirina has been appointed as interim president by the army unit CAPSAT (i cant find any info on what CAPSAT actually is, other than they are an elite military unit, so possibly some sort of special forces unit) and this was confirmed by the country's constitutional court. would it be prudent to wait or for the madagascar page to state him as president? Bird244 (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Ideally we want external sources to be referring to someone as the President (or other title) without any qualifiers. Ideally at least a paragraph is added to the Government section first. CMD (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Can we at least write a line about Andry Rajoelina fleeing the country in the wake of this coup in a history section? I tried to add this information, but it was removed in the edit about whether it was a "military coup" or not. My edit didn't really have anything to do with that, I just wanted to state basic facts. I'm reluctant to re-add it for fear my edit might be once again removed. What are we waiting for? IslaAntilia (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You need to pay closer attention to what edits are saying, because your most recent edit reverted a removal of content that did not mention "military coup" at all in an entirely unrelated section of the article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if my edit restored any controversial information that had previously been reverted. I simply stated that he left the country due to impeachment and protests. "In September 2025 protests erupted and in October Rajoelina was impeached and subsequently fled the country.^[1]" You removed my edit because of the words "military junta" (not military coup), which I did not use. IslaAntilia (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries -- that portion is fixed now, so you should be able to readd the portion about Rajoelina fleeing the country. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate it, thank you. IslaAntilia (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

A reminder on our core content policies and guidelines: Unless there are reliable sources stating that the current regime in Madagascar is a military junta, it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR for us to state that is the case in the infobox. Unsourced content that is challenged may be removed and the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Please stop labelling this as a military junta without any reliable sources *directly* stating that it is a military junta. We cannot simply guess at, speculate, or derive that status from other things a source says if they are not directly stating this. I cannot believe that I am having to explain basic core policies like this to multiple editors with collectively tens of thousands of edits between then, but here we are. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Changethe section in History, September 2025, saying Rajoelina was empeached and subsequently fled from the country to Rajoelina fled from the country and sunsequently he as empeachef. The decision to empeach him was due to the fact he deserted his function by fleeing abroad " 2A0A:EF40:84A:B001:C662:4E9E:7690:371B (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Slomo666 (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is currently stamped with the GOCE in-use template, which discourages editing except by a single copy editor who is trying to make big, systemic changes (I guess). But no substantive changes have happened in, what, 38 hours? This article often receives many edits per day. So the GOCE template is stifling the ordinary operation of Wikipedia.

The GOCE template should be removed. If it is re-instituted in the future, then it should be for short bursts of active editing, that respect the rights of non-GOCE editors. Mgnbar (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mgnbar, the whole idea of a requested copy edit is to ask for a member of the Guild of Copy Editors to spend quality time working on an article, during which only that editor does so. As soon as the copy edit is finished, the editor removes the GOCE in use notification and adds a notification of completion on the article's Talk page. At that point, any and all who'd like to "have at it" again can do so.

A requested edit deserves a great deal of focus from us. It's not like just someone coming along and adding a statistic, a few dates, or a new citation. We have to look at the article both top-down and bottom-up, so to speak … not just attending to the basics like spelling, verb tense, and punctuation (which should be in the same variety of English throughout) but also checking that statements made at different points in the article aren't duplicates and finding ways to slightly reword or break up huge chunks of text for greater clarity.

Surely you can begin to appreciate how hard it would be for an editor working with the entire article in mind at the same time to work on it if others could come along and make changes to the changes he or she was doing.

But picture this, to add to your hopefully increasing amount of appreciation for the need to respect the GOCE in use notification: Editor #1, who's working on a copy request article, tries to publish a set of edits. Meanwhile, Editor #2, who unbeknownst to Editor #1 has popped in and also done some work on the article, has published another set during that same time period. Editor #1 will receive a "conflict of edit" notification that prevents publication until he or she resolves the two sets. Resolution demands much extra time and effort, or else a simple undo. In both cases, I send a message to the occupant of the Editor #2 role to explain. This scenario has now occurred five—yes, five!—times while I've worked on this article. Never before have I encountered anything like this in all my time with GOCE.

Because I know this article will eventually head toward FA status, and I think it does have the potential, I'm happy to give it my best as the editor who picked it up to work on. But to carry on the work involved in a requested copy edit, I need to ask you and any other eager beavers who may be chomping at the bit to work within the same boundaries. It won't take much longer … if you let me do my part of the work unimpeded. (Oh, and about a 38-hour interval between edits: something came up in the other life I lead when not working on Wikipedia, as I assume can occasionally happen to other Wikipedia editors too. But the GOCE in use template still applies. In case of emergencies, we (GOCE editors) make arrangements.)Augnablik (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not accept this response, but I'm going to wait a while and calm down, before posting anything that I regret. Mgnbar (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mgnbar, I'm now trying my best to complete the copy edit full steam ahead so you and @Kowal2701 and any others who want to edit the article again can have access as soon as possible.

I think there may have been some misunderstanding on the part of both myself and those of you who've been involved in editing the Madagascar article about what to expect during a requested copy edit that happens at the very same time as an FAR.

If—in this unique case—it is a legitimate expectation that the FAR editors can go ahead doing whatever edits they want, I was unaware of it. But something a senior GOCE editor just mentioned makes me think this may be true. And if so, i think we can see that we were both acting in good faith though with ruffled feathers.

But if it is true, I don't know how to avoid the possibility of edit conflict issues I raised in the long message I wrote you. For instance, let's say you make an edit and because I was also working on the article at the same time and published my edits first, you'd be disallowed from doing so till you resolved the conflict. That's a time thief.

Having encountered this sort of issue for the first time in a GOCE copy edit, I'm already in discussion with a few of our coordinators (leaders) so we can all avoid similar clashes of expectations in the future.

Now I'll get back to work on the article, which I stopped only when I saw your more recent message and just couldn't not try to move things toward the more amicable ambience I'm sure we both want.

Augnablik (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Augnablik, I assume you're working on the article, and in between sessions you leave the window open? Would it be possible for you to publish at the end of each session, and add and remove the template at the start and end of sessions? Thanks for the work you've done thus far Kowal2701 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, I think my reply to Mgnbar above also covers what you asked in your message—hope so, anyway. Augnablik (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Usually people only put the template up for 10 mins or so while they’re making an edit, but you seem to want it up for like a week straight? I’m not sure that process is going to work for high-traffic articles like this. You might be better off doing what I said in my first sentence, or copying into user space, working on it there, then pasting it back Kowal2701 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know too many editors, Kowal2701, who could do an even halfway decent job on more than perhaps the lead and first section of a requested copy edit of an article of more than 13,000 words, and lots of information, in 10 minutes!

At any rate, please try to practice the good life skill of patience for a few more days.

Augnablik (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't clear, I think people tend to do like 10-20 minute bursts. I'm happy to wait but there'll probably be more edit conflicts from other editors, and was just trying to advise on how to avoid that Kowal2701 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Augnablik, I offered this advice elsewhere, but I'll mention it here again: Editing just one section of the article is a great way to avoid edit conflicts. Open a specific section, make edits there, then Preview to make sure you did not make obvious errors, then Publish. Then move on to the next section. That is the best way to avoid edit conflicts in an article that sees frequent editing activity. Do not leave your editing window open for an hour or more and expect good results. You may wish that Wikipedia could work that way, but it simply does not. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

There's a huge gap between ten minutes and the 12 days you've now had the article checked out. Look, I get that copyediting is a valuable pursuit and am happy that people such as you embark on such projects. But, realistically, for a multi-day project you really should draft your changes in your user space, incorporating edits others make to the article in the meantime into your version, and then update the article when you've finished. This will shield you from the otherwise inevitable outcome that an article that receives traffic will continue to be edited people who don't see the banner, some of them specifically to make edits to your edits, and from co-opting the article for so long as to be an unfair barrier to others. You may see it as "right" for you to argue against other people touching the article in all that time, for you to expect so much uninterrupted time editing it directly, but sometimes we should put the pragmatic ahead of the ideal. You'll find that your frustration factor falls considerably. Largoplazo (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear editors, especially those of you involved in the FAR,

I’ve completed my requested copy edit of the article. Sorry that it took awhile longer than some of you were  hoping, but aside from the article’s length and complexity, and a few it turns out that my understanding of what we GOCE editors should expect as far as being left alone till the end of a requested copy edit was wrong after all.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the confusion. Because confusion is something I would never want to contribute to, it's all the more anguishing to find out I did.

After eight months onboard with GOCE without a similar issue, in the belief that multiple edits at the same time simply weren't supposed to be done, it came as more than a surprise to find otherwise. Although I think it’s hard to work as either article editors or GOCE editors not knowing if and when other edits are being made at the same time, which in turn require spending time to resolve, there are far more difficult challenges in life!

In the message below, you’ll find a few things I thought you might want to be aware of about the copy edit and possibly pick up on for further editing of the article. Augnablik (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is not "confusion". The problem is that a GOCE editor arrogates power to themselves, to the effect that all other Wikipedians are rendered second-class citizens, who are not permitted to edit an article.

In my years of editing Wikipedia, I have written, majorly rewritten, and majorly re-organized a number of articles. Also, I have observed other editors rewriting articles, including highly contentious ones. This has all been orchestrated through edit summaries and talk pages. I have never seen an editor claim exclusive editing rights for weeks on end (2026/1/16-2026/01/29, in this case).

I do not know whether GOCE's work is legitimate. After this one exposure, I doubt it. I am trying to assume good faith, but this all seems like a denial-of-service attack on Wikipedia. Perhaps it can be done well, if it is done with (A) deep knowledge of Wikipedia policy, (B) deep understanding for Wikipedia culture, (C) deep respect for non-GOCE Wikipedians, and (D) great speed. Mgnbar (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

There was a related discussion last year, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2025#in use 8 hours old?, including guidance on just this from Paine Ellsworth. Largoplazo (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Besides all that, @Augnablik, when an editor clicks a section link in their watchlist after seeing something in a diff that they want to make a follow-up edit to, and then they click an Edit link next to that section, they aren't going to see the banner. In other words, the banner's utility is limited, and not through the fault of any editor. Largoplazo (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Largoplazo, no doubt it would be a good idea for all GOCE editors to follow that Talk page. As I've been working on copy edit requests only during bimonthly backlog reduction drives, and I don't recall seeing promotional notices to encourage keeping up with the page, it hasn't come to mind to consult as have other important Wiki resources.

Will definitely keep it in mind.

Augnablik (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Mgnbar, what I’ve tried to explain about this situation is that I was operating with the understanding from the wording of the GOCE in use notice notification posted on articles during requested copy edits—only then—that no other editing is supposed to be done: "As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed." That looked very clear, similar to a "No Trespassing" sign.

So, in light of this, when not just one but two, three, and eventually six editors of this article began editing it while the GOCE message was still up, I felt increasingly bewildered why it was going on, as well as frustrated at spending time writing messages to try to prevent what seemed exactly what the GOCE notification asked not to happen ... in addition to spending time to resolve the editing conflict that arises when one of the editors working simultaneously publishes before the other. Somehow I think if you were operating with that understanding, you might feel the same way.

I can't begin to describe my amazement at finding out, after this went on for a while, that despite the straightforward wording of the GOCE notice, it is legitimate after all for others to edit at the same time. And that multiple editing could be particularly expected at times like a FAR, something I'd never been involved in. Perhaps the GOCE in notice can someday make expectations a bit clearer for all concerned.

I understand that with this copy edit, expected time for article delivery also became an issue, probably as much more a priority with FARs than more typical editing. Although time issues haven't arisen before in my GOCE editing, I also never faced at the same time having to deal with several unanticipated "real life" issues on top of working on a very long article.

Although I see why you might have felt it was arrogance on my part to make such an effort to stave off editing by others during the copy edit, Mgnbar, I also hope that what I've said here will show more of where I was coming from—especially as you think about future copy edit requests from GOCE. I think this particular one was highly unusual, and I wouldn't want anything to stand in the way of your turning to GOCE again for further assistance. Its standards are high, and I've always tried to meet them ... retooling if and when I see that need, as I will with a few things from this copy edit. Augnablik (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The response above is utterly inadquate. What's important here is not what other editors are doing to you, but rather what you are doing to Wikipedia.

This episode has damaged the reputation of GOCE and the GOCE in-use template. In the near future, when I see GOCE, my default response will be "this is probably a denial-of-service attack on Wikipedia", and I will try to limit the damage as much as I can.

Perhaps over time the reputation of GOCE and its in-use template can be established. Mgnbar (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Acceptance of apologies can't be forced, only hoped for, when the person who apologizes does so. Especially with an explanation about what brought about or contributed to what's apologized for. Plus, in a case like this where misunderstanding was involved, what the apologizer has now learned.

If that, alongside Wikipedia's encouragement of assume good faith, isn't enough to encourage acceptance of the apology I made, Mgnbar, I can't think of much else to do, other than perhaps to share a few lines that have come to mean a lot to me:

Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future. —Paul Boese

Augnablik (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If I can be of further help with the article, please feel free to ask or comment here and I'll be happy to respond. Meanwhile, here are some things I knew might arise or be of special interest for you.

1.   I removed Wikipedia links in the lead because that’s MOS policy.

2.   The lead could use a little streamlining, as it’s rather long and should be more of an overall summary of the article.

3.   The first infobox could use a little streamlining, as it’s also quite long.

4.   In the infobox about tavy, I couldn’t italicize the word because the template wouldn’t let me and I didn’t know of a workaround.

5.   Infoboxes using a sentence need a closing period; infoboxes with just sentence fragments do not. I made occasional changes accordingly.

6.   In the Religion subsection of “Culture,” there are two photos of Catholic churches—but because the Christians of Madagascar are more Protestant than Catholic, this seems a bit unbalanced.

7.   By chance I noticed (as a French speaker) that the French title of a reference I came across was missing accent marks, so I checked on that and made the necessary changes. Finding one such occurrence of this means the same problem might have occurred with other French titles and be in need of fixing.

8.   Although there is mention of the country’s Fourth Republic, there is no corresponding Wikipedia link for the first occurrence of the term in the body of the article (in the subsection of the French colonization and the colonial period section).

9.   In the Demographics section, this statement is made: “Only two general censuses—in 1975 and 1993—have been carried out in Madagascar after independence.” But—again by chance—I found that there have in fact been three, the last in 2018!

10.   In the Arts subsection of “Culture,” this statement is made: “The decorative and functional woodworking traditions of the Zafimaniry people of the Central Highlands was inscribed on UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage List in 2008.” By chance I found out that there are other arts also on the list, so it would seem of value to include them as well.

11. You'll see that I often tightened up the text for clarity or flow, and occasionally repositioned other text to where there seemed a more logical fit, such as in the first paragraph of the Religion subsection under "Culture." Also, I also broke up some long chunks of text for greater readability.

12. As much of the information is now out of date, I placed a number of update-needed notifications on statements in the body of the text. These can be removed if this need is something you're already aware of and have noted such places. There are also some clarification-needed notifications in places that could cause some confusion for readers.

Augnablik (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I gotta correct you on point 1. As I mentioned when I undid that edit, it isn't remotely Wikipedia's policy not to have links in the lead. Is there an article without them? MOS:LEAD not only doesn't prohibit them; from MOS:CONTEXTLINK and MOS:FIRSTTERM, as well as every correct example on the page, it clearly calls for them. Largoplazo (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Rather than go into why that was done, Largoplazo, I'll just say thank you. Augnablik (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

In the "Early History" section, the sentence "Societies organized at the behest of hasina..." has a wrong link. The word "hasina" redirects to the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, instead of the concept of imbued authority in Madagascar. Boyidareyousbff (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Boyidareyousbff I've fixed the link, but the use of the word "behest" seems wrong because hasina isn't a person. Should it be

• Societies, influenced by hasina, organized, then competed ...
• Societies, driven by hasina, organized, then competed ...
• Societies, in their pursuit of hasina, organized ...

or something else? Largoplazo (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, the source says

Central to political and religious thought was the notion of a force known in Malagasy as hasina.”* This key Malagasy concept, which was probably present among the earliest settlers, has changed its meaning over time.” Hasina is a spiritual quality that was the essence of social and political organization against the forces of disorder and wilderness. In time, it was to be incorporated into complex ideologies of kingship in which the sovereign was regarded as an essential channel for the spiritual virtue necessary for human society to endure.

Maybe facilitated by hasina? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Largoplazo In my opinion, I think the best wording would be "Societies, driven by hasina, organized, then competed ..." because "An individual is believed to be imbued with hasina..." It says people naturally have hasina; which would drive them to do something; which in this case is organizing societies. Boyidareyousbff (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I used driven, with more tweaking than I suggested above, because I realized I didn't know whether hasina drove the competition as well as the organization. I assumed it didn't. Was I right? Largoplazo (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

In this article, the dates given are: "...Madagascar was first permanently settled during or before the mid-first millennium CE (roughly 500 to 700)"

---- However, in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merina_people the dates given are: "...Austronesian people started settling in Madagascar between 200 and 500 BC. ..."

- This is a conflict. One of those dates given is clearly wrong. Crayonbynumber (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The date of the earliest settlement of Madagascar is subject to serious contention. Basically everyone agrees that humans were present in Madagascar by 500-700 AD, but there is serious contention as to whether people were present on the islands centuries to millennia earlier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)