Talk:Angolan Civil War

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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: [1] 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: [2]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^contribs 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, Lara♥Love 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues have been addressed. Article will remain listed. Thank you and best regards. Lara❤Love 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 ^що? 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 ^що? 01:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Bogdan, you were right, and I was wrong Spanish Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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: [3] and [4]

Normally, I would ask the reverter, but he consistently removes my questions without appropriate response (eg: [5]) 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..
  • a. You clearly are unfamiliar with Angola and Angolan history
  • b. You followed me here to harass me.
• This was vandalism.[6] 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: [7] Alice.S 18:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ao-unita.gif

Image:Ao-unita.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 this Wikipedia article 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Results of Cuito Cuanavale

There are legitimate disputes as to the victor at Cuito Cuanavale by major sources including combatants and diplomats on both sides that should be incorporated into the article. I've attempted to do so and moved away from statements of certitude from a single Cuban POV. Virgil61 (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but maintain the reference style and always name individuals when possible. A South African defeat at Cuito Cuanavale is hardly "Cuban" POV. Jose João (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right the term 'Cuban POV' is not broad enough, but a Cuban victory is something that is strongly disputed and there is evidence that it was a Cuban loss. We have two views of the battle neither is definitive and both sides must be included when doubt arises. I must have messed up on the reference style somehow. Virgil61 (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I converted to cite book. Jose João (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Please follow the merge discussion here: Talk:Cuba in Angola#Merge. — Deon Steyn (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Essentially done - the last bit will need to be merged to different sections of Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. Jose João (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Senator dick clark.jpg

Image:Senator dick clark.jpg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

I would like to nominate this article for "featured article" status. Where and how do I do so? Josh (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991)

The Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991) article, which is a deliberate POV content fork of this article, is currently under AfD here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Counter governments Angola 1975

Dear author,

You are mentioning the existence of alternative polities dissident to the MPLA-lead People's Republic of Angola: the UNITA-lead Social Democratic Republic of Angola (in Huambo) and the FNLA-lead Democratic Republic of Angola (in Ambriz), which merged on 23 Nov 1975 and formed a counter government in Huambo. I am surprised by this news, because all the sources I know only are mentioning the proclamation of 'República Popular e Democrática de Angola' by combined UNITA and FNLA on 11 Nov 1975, the same day of the proclamation of the P.R. of Angola. Can you mention your sources about this item? My second question is: do you the exact date when the People's Democratic Republic of Angola collapsed in 1976? Or did this polity continued by UNITA, and if so, what was the official long-form name of the UNITA-polity afterwards and its precise dates of existence? Hope you can help me.

Best regards.

Historydude50 (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Cuito Cuanavale discrepancy

"UNITA and South African forces attacked the MPLA's base at Cuito Cuanavale in Cuando Cubango province from January 13 to March 23, 1988, in the second largest battle in the history of Africa,[77] after the Battle of El Alamein,[78] the largest in sub-Saharan Africa since World War II."

If the Battle of El-Alamein in the second largest battle in the history of Africa, then the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale must be the largest battle in the history of sub-Saharan Africa. The above text thus makes very little sense, as it seems to imply (or even flat out state) that the Battle of El-Alamein occurred in sub-Saharan Africa, but it actually occurred in north-central Egypt, along the Mediterranean coast. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There were plenty of battles larger than Cuito Cuanavale in World War II, for example the Battle of Gazala. 200.32.90.110 (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Roots of the conflict

I added a more detailed explanation of the meaning of indigeno and assimilado. I corrected the date of the upgrading of the colony to overseas province status (1951). I moved the text about Cabinda to the section's bottom because Cabinda is a minor part of the Civil War in Angola. Miguel in Portugal (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes... but the content you added has no sources.. while the content I added, which you then removed, was sourced... Waide Piki (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Chronology: With respect to "UNITA and South African forces attacked the MPLA's base at Cuito Cuanavale"--this statement should make reference to the Cuban/MPLA forces' attempted crossing of the Lomba river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.29.1 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Need for overall revision

While the Angolan Civil War cannot be understood if it is not placed in the Cold War context, it cannot be understood either (and even less its roots as well as its consequences in Angola) if this is the only or even the dominant analytical approach. For this reason, but also because in the meantime important additional sources have become available, a careful and differentiated revision of the whole text seems called for. I shall try and make a number of contributions in this sense, but this is of course a task that can only be carried out if undertaken by more than one person. Aflis (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC) PS: This task is still on my agenda, but I have been held up by other commitments. Perhaps in the weeks to come... Aflis (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam

IP is right: the participation of Vietnam in this conflict is pure fantasy. Aflis (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: And so is the presence of North Korean troops in Angola! Aflis (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"communism-based civil war"

I confess I was taken aback when I discovered today that the category "communism-based civil wars" had been selected for this article. How can this happen in 2011 when we have access to an impressive range of research results on the subject, which do not permit us to come up with such crudely biased statements? -- Aflis (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Antecedents

In the section "Build-up....", the following fundamental errors were eliminated: (a) in 1961, the initiative was not taken by "various" groups, but by UPA (which a few months later became de FNLA) and the MPLA; (b) at that stage, the FNLA was supported by China, not the USA; (c) the MPLA found support in several African and European countries; (d) at that stage, neither FNLA nor MPLA declared independence - both waited until 1975. -- Aflis (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

FNLC

I reverted the last edit for the following reasons: (a) The name of the movement was FNLC, not FLNC. (b) It was a separatist movement in Zaire, and had nothing to do with Congo-Brazzaville. (c) It was the driving force in Shaba I, but not in Angola: in a first step, an important part of its main military component, the Katanga Gendarmerie, fled into North-Eastern Angola; in a second step, they launched from there an attack into Katanga; in a third step, most of them fled again into Angola, many with their families; finally, when the Angolan conflict broke out, they were recruited by the MPLA as an allied/auxiliary force. -- Aflis (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Here is mine conversation with Aflis below. Users are welcome to express their opinions prior to changing the infobox contents.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Having worked on Angola for more than four decades, I have over the last two years or so tried to improve articles on Angola in WP (several languages). I was thus delighted to see your recent work on the en:WP article on the Angolan Civil War, which is a period I have somewhat neglected with regard to the military side. I wonder whether we can agree on the following points:

1. The civil war in Angola ran from 1975 to 2002. The war for independence stopped effectively in April 1974, although a formal peace agreement was signed in January 1975 only. What I call the "decolonization conflict" is the fight between the nationalist movements & allies from April 1974 to November 1975 (independence). This conflict becomes a civil war after independence. Civil war can be divided in two periods: until 1991 (Cuban and South African military involvement) and 1991-2002 (external support only). I think this periodization is important, because it permits to specify the participation of other countries.
2. There was direct participation of Cuba and SA in the fighting in 1974/75 as well as in 1975-1991.
3. I have never heard of the involvement of French & Morroccan troops: what are your sources?
4. The support of the Soviet Union consisted of air transport for Cuban troops, furnishing military equipment, and a few advisors, mostly in 1974/75, less in 1975-1991.
5. Zaire supported the FNLA (logistics, equipment) and (small) contingents of troops, mainly in 1974/75, less so in 1975-1991 (when, as far as I know, the FNLA ceased it military activity as early as 1976/77)
6. The US gave UNITA logistical, material and diplomatic support 1975-1991.
7. China gave the FNLA some (unspecified) support in the early 1960s, and shifted this support (which then included military training in China for come cadres) to UNITA after 1966. This is uncontested : see e.g. John Marcum's book.
8. Algeria supported the MPLA 1961-1974, mainly by hosting a pivotal group of MPLA exile cadres. I don't know about any further support.
9. I don't have any sources on Libyan involvement.
10. I am quite surprised at you mentioning the FNLC: what are the sources?
11. Gabon and Côte d'Ivoire: I don't have sources, either.
12. Mozambique: the FRELIMO regime has given "fraternal" moral and diplomatic support to the MPLA from the 1960s onwards, but as far as I know, there was no military involvement (so much the less as there was a civil war going on in Mozambique as well).

Do you think you could answer to all this, on this page? Thank you in advance -- Aflis (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, i'm no expert on Angola, and nor Angola is the focal point of my editor interests; thank you however for your gratitude over my work there. I've stumbled upon the article when user:EcoGraf gave the Angolan civil war as an example of how to list belligerents, which totally flustrated me, as it the Angolan civil war article infobox had been a completely unsourced mess. Therefore, i decided to fix it as a one time editor effort. Regarding your points:

1. I don't contest the timing of the conflict; Answer Aflis: ok
2. Cuba and SA made direct participation in the conflict, but the source i found lists them as "supporters" to each of the sides. It is somehow semantic whether we list them as direct belligerents or supporters (i don't care). Answer Aflis: In fact "supporter" has various meanings, and so does "belligerent". For me, the latter implies combat troops, the former doesn't - which means there is a fundamental difference.
3. French and Moroccan troops, as well as FNLC participated in Shaba I and Shaba II, however i'm not sure whether Shaba battles were part of the Angolan civil war or just a satellite conflict. Answer Aflis: A significant contingent of "Gendarmes katangais" passed into Angola and ended up fighting for the MPLA. As far as I know, this was the only repercussion of the Shaba Wars in Angola.
4. Soviet Union is listed by WP:RS as a major supporting power in the conflict. In addition, the infobox lists that it had deployed troops and sustained casualties- i have not checked the sources however. Answer Aflis: From all I know through Angolan and Cuban sources, there were no Soviet combat troops in Angola, just a number of "military advisers" (some of whom may, of course, have died).
5. Zaire - as well a supporting party in the conflict. Answer Aflis: ok
6. US gave a significant collteral support, the question is whether it was exceptional to list it, considering it brought no troops on the ground. I tend to accept the stance of Perez de Cuellar on this. Answer Aflis: One can compare the role of the US to that of the the URSS: there were a number of CIA "operatives" on the ground in Angola.
7. China's support (if existed) was not significant and therefor not WP:DUE. Answer Aflis: China's support was decisive for launching UNITA whose leader, Savimbi, got training in, and material support from, China in the sixties. Sources listed in John Marcum, "The Angolan Revolution" (a work that constituted a fundamental reference).
8. no sources on involvement of Algeria through the conflict (1975 on). Answer Aflis: ok
9. Libyan involvement is unsourced. Answer Aflis: ok
10. FNLC was involved in Shaba (see above). Answer Aflis: ok
11. Gabon and Cote d'voir - unsourced. Answer Aflis: ok. NB: Its "Côte d'Ivoire"!
12. Mazimbique - i had no info on that, so considering your knowlege, it should as well be removed. Answer Aflis: ok

Hope it clarifies.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I placed my answers in your text, in italics. Will you now fix the infobox (& text)? -- Aflis (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I will fix the infobox, but regarding the text - pls do it yourself; i have my attention on other issues right now.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do - in due course....--Aflis (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Infobox restored to the above understanding. Any edits to infobox should first be brought to discussion and supported by sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• The following data has been temporarily removed, until a credible source is brought ("country-data" doesn't seem sufficient to me):

North Korean troops (alleged) *3,000 (1984) I don't mind adding more supporters, but let's clarify that arms sales is not "support". "Support" is bringing logistical forces or providing training /intelligence to troops. If indeed North Korea was so much involved, an academic source would be needed.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

References

"Communism-based"

This is typically a label which prevents the reader from understanding the complex character of the civil war. In fact, the conflict between FNLA, MPLA, and UNITA - after the anti-colonial war stopped in April 1974 - was a struggle for power, and the external alliances as well as the ideological discourse were essentially a matter of opportunism. When the MPLA adopted in 1977 - two years after independence, and almost four years after the outbreak of the infight among the three movements - "marxism-leninism" as its official doctrine, this did not make it a communist party, but was simply the price for the support from Cuba, the Soviet Union and othern "Eastern block" countries. The understanding was that the political system to be established in Angola was to be the "socialist", not the "communist" variant of the models distinguished by the marxist-leninist theories. In fact, the current within the MPLA which was in favour of the "communist" model, and tried to impose its position in 1977, was violently suppressed, at the cost of tens of thousand lives. On the other hand, the ideological convictions of the UNITA leadership were very much influenced by Jonas Savimbi's stay in Maoist China, but as he needed the support of the West, the movement posed as "pro-western". Also, in 1991 the MPLA, agreeing to introduce a multiparty system in Angola, oficially abandoned maxism-leninism, declaring itself "social democratic", but in fact became a centre-right party - all of which did not prevent the civil war to continue for another decade... --Aflis (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian involvement?

I had been told that Brazil was involved in the war indirectly. Is there any evidence for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.17.101.129 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sudanese involvement?

Sudan had supported the Zaireans during the Shaba invasions. The Shaba invasions had Angolan Civil War veterans in it. Did Sudan provide support during the Angolan civil War?

Recent correction

Farawayman, thanks for correcting that; I think you'll notice, though, that before my edit, the text read "Senator Dick Clark (senator)" which was obviously redundant. If I had been more diligent, I may have noticed that it was the wrong Dick Clark, but my edit was in good faith. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Number of South African troops

The number of South African troops in Angola in 1976 was not 20,000. That is larger than the entire army at the time. The numbers in Angola were some 3,000 - as indicated in the Wikipedia article on Operation Savannah.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Right you are. So why not adjust the text? Aflis (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox again

Angolan Civil War
Part of the Cold War
Date 11 November 1975 – 4 April 2002 (26 years, 4 months, 3 weeks and 3 days) Location Angola Result MPLA victory Withdrawal of all foreign forces in 1989 Transition towards a multiparty political system in 1991/92 Dissolution of the armed forces of FNLA Participation of UNITA and FNLA, as political parties, in the new political system, from 1991/92 onwards, but civil war continues Jonas Savimbi killed in 2002 Immediate peace agreement and dissolution of the armed forces of UNITA in 2002 Resistance of FLEC continued beyond 2002
Belligerents
MPLA SWAPO Cuba (1975–91)	UNITA FNLA (1975-77 FLEC South Africa (1975–89)
Support: Soviet Union (1975–89) East Germany (1975-89)	Support: United States Zaire (1975) China

Some users constantly inflate the box with unrelated countries. Unless sources are supplied no additions to be made. Please discuss first.GreyShark (dibra) 17:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: Hold on, did you look through all the sources before you deleted certain countries from the infobox? Because some of the countries, such as Zambia had sources. For example, if you see 228 and 229 of this book that was referenced, it clearly says that Zambia supported South Africa. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: we had a comprehensive discussion in 2012 on belligerents. I'm not trying to prevent edits to infobox, but encouraging users to discuss it first on the talk page before adding. Thanks for bringing it here.GreyShark (dibra) 10:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Specifically about the source - first of all it seems fairly reliable to me, even though not an academic publication; Al-Amin Mazrui was a Kenian professor of African history, so his editorial is sufficient to me to make this reliable enough; further the chapter on Angolan Civil War was written by an academic Prof. Isawa Elaigwu, so it is good as well. The content says Zambia's "support for UNITA may be regarded as an attempt to safeguard its international interest...", but it doesn't specify what was this support. The fact Zambia is listed among a dozen countries which supported Angolan Government of National Unity, doesn't warrant its inclusion in the infobox - such support could have been merely a political stance and no more. There is no indication here that Zambia provided logistic, military or advisory support to UNITA, and hence i'm against putting it in the infobox, unless it is clearly indicated.GreyShark (dibra) 10:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The last agreed infobox included the following confirmed parties in this conflict is on the right.GreyShark (dibra) 10:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm removing Panama from current version (unsourced) and checking E. Germany (added with no discussion). I'm retaining Zambia with Mazrui source, but hidden, until we find proper description of the support provided to UNITA if any.GreyShark (dibra) 10:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

After examining the content of Mitchell source, which was justifying E.Germany - he speaks UNITA and FAPLA (referring to MPLA) as belligerents, Cuban troops deployment, Soviet support, indeed notable E.German support (under Soviet umbrella). Furthermore, Mitchell indicates South African direct involvement with SADF (south African army) as belligerent, and that is it for now. I'm keeping E. Germany as a result of this good explanation Done.GreyShark (dibra) 10:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's an established precedent that every country ever added to the infobox gets cleared here first, perhaps we should add an editing notice to the article so new contributors won't have to scroll past the massively under-archived discussions on this talk page to find a reference to it. For example I had no idea I was expected to open a discussion here before adding East Germany to the box.

On a related note, the vast repertoire of commented out information is currently cluttering the editing window whenever any contributor tries to do anything with the infobox. I say if that information is suspect due to unreliable sources/no sources at all, it must be challenged and removed. It cannot be allowed to simply stew there indefinitely. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Katangais: There is no specific policy on adding belligerents yet on wikipedia, but we are generally abiding the WP:BRD and WP:EXCEPTIONAL policies in this regard. Meaning basically that edits, which are seen as controversial in reference to the stable article version can be reverted (it is quite a sensitive issue to put countries in war infoboxes, so it should be supported by good sources and involvement should be notable), until there is a new consensus on the talk page. This consensus concerning Angolan civil war was established back in 2012 (discussion "infobox" above), but we are now changing the previous consensus to a new one by adding E.Germany. There is no consensus to add Zambia yet, since one user is supporting and one is opposing.GreyShark (dibra) 12:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I'm inclined to add North Korea to the list of countries which provided advisory assistance to the MPLA. In his book Terrorism, the North Korean connection, Joe Bermudez describes North Korean support for left-wing insurgencies around the world and devotes about two pages to Angola. He mentions that North Korea plied both the MPLA and FNLA with weapons until the two movements declared war on each other, then switched entirely to the MPLA. According to Bermudez, North Korea had a military mission in Angola until late 1984 which was entrusted with arming and training individual FAPLA units. I understand this has come up for discussion once before, but wouldn't the presence of North Korean advisers attached directly to FAPLA would qualify that country for a spot on the infobox? --Katangais (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Katangais: Technically speaking if North Korea continued weapon deliveries during the war and sent advisors to train FAPLA troops this does account military support. However, the book of Joe S Bermudez is a popular literature, and might not apply to WP:RS guidelines due to the fact that Joe is not a scholar and the cited book is published by some private publishing house without any peer review. This Joe Bermudez does seem to be affiliated with academy via 38 North project of the Hopkins University, but i'm not sure what is his level of expertise (he seems to be a lawyer, not expert of politics nor history). We may include something like "Author Joe Bermudez argued that North Korea supported the MPLA during the civil war" in foreign involvement section, but this is not yet a fact to be included in the infobox per WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy.GreyShark (dibra) 08:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I'd object to your assertion that Bermudez is unqualified to discuss this topic with any authority; his book on North Korean special forces was published by the US Naval Institute. This would seem to suggest he is in fact a noted scholar who has published peer-reviewed works in military circles before, rather than some sensationalist. Furthermore his writing style and the level of tactical details given in his book have all the markings of a military scholar's work rather than that of a sociologist or a tabloid journalist (Lord knows, I've read plenty of literature on the Angolan war written by both). --Katangais (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Katangais: I'm not saying that Bermudez is totally unqualified, but i'm raising doubts about the validity of his claims due to the fact that he is NOT a scholar but having just an administrative role within academy (he is neither Dr nor Prof in relevant field of expertise, but is administratively managing a research center) and North Korea is not mentioned as supporter during the Angolan Civil War by any expert scholar or at least such have not been shown here to date. GreyShark (dibra) 06:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angolan Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118152048/http://www.cubamatinal.com/Noticia.cfm?NoticiaID=7964 to http://www.cubamatinal.com/Noticia.cfm?NoticiaID=7964
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901091552/http://www.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de:80/publish/Ipw/Akuf/kriege/281_angola.htm to http://www.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de/publish/Ipw/Akuf/kriege/281_angola.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Angolan decolonisation conflict 1974/75

Creating a separate 74-75 phase in the Angolan conflict is an artificial academic construct by one author, against the norm followed by other historians who correctly distitingush between two phases: the Angolan War of Independence and the Angolan civil war. It is certainly not for the lede, as it only confuses readers for two reasons:

• 1. the term "decolonisation" is historically associated with the struggles for independence, so in this case, the Angolan War of Independence;
• 2. the text clearly says it is "the first battle in the Angolan Civil War", also identified as such in the infobox as "Part of The Angolan Civil War".

It is one or the other, it can't be both. Unfortunately the editor who made this change keeps repeating it elsewhere. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Angolan Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313165633/http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=24839& to http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=24839&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927174722/http://www.african-geopolitics.org/show.aspx?ArticleId=3583 to http://www.african-geopolitics.org/show.aspx?ArticleId=3583
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810172623/http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/Angola/AngolaResEng.htm to http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/Angola/AngolaResEng.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111040440/http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0173 to http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0173
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de/publish/Ipw/Akuf/kriege/281_angola.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Angolan Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203090343/http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2574/a/75170 to http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2574/a/75170
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105182138/http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2576 to http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2576
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826180211/http://www.absa.ch/AK/Bulletin/123.htm to http://www.absa.ch/AK/Bulletin/123.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Mozambique

There has been a claim that Mozambique was one of the supporting parties in this conflict. The claim was backed by this source:

Nzongola-Ntalaja Georges, Wallerstein Immanuel Maurice. The Crisis in Zaire. 1986. pages=193–194.

Could somebody verify it?GreyShark (dibra) 18:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Aflis, Kamalthebest, and Katangais: - welcome to comment.GreyShark (dibra) 18:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Greyshark09: I could be wrong but I see no mention of Mozambique on these pages. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding to what Kamal said, this search returns only one reference to Mozambique in the book, and the Angolan Civil War is not discussed there. Certainly, however, both FRELIMO and the MPLA maintained extremely close diplomatic and political relations both prior to and after independence. Given how occupied they were with their respective civil wars, however, it's unlikely that either government found the time or resources to militarily assist the other. --Katangais (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

@WorldlyVoice: - before adding Yugoslavia to the infobox please discuss it here per above precedents and in line with WP:BRD policy. The infobox has been decided to be stable until otherwise concluded by discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 08:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angolan Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407070407/http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552556 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552556
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312184049/http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/549457 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/549457

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest on the infobox

Angolan Civil War
Part of the Cold War (until 1991)
Date 11 November 1975 – 4 April 2002 (26 years, 4 months, 3 weeks and 3 days) Location Angola Result MPLA victory by 1992. Creation, then collapse, of the People's Republic of Angola Withdrawal of all foreign forces in 1989. Transition towards a multiparty political system in 1991/92. Dissolution of the armed forces of the FNLA. Participation of UNITA and FNLA, as political parties, in the new political system, from 1991/92 onwards. Jonas Savimbi, leader of UNITA, killed in 2002; UNITA abandoned armed struggle and participated in electoral politics. Resistance of FLEC continued to this day
Belligerents
MPLA Cuba (1975–91) SWAPO (1975–91) ANC (1975–91) Executive Outcomes (1993–95) FLNC (1975–2001) Namibia (2001–02) Material support: Soviet Union (1975–1991) East Germany (1975–1989) Yugoslavia (1975–1991) North Korea (1980s)	UNITA FNLA (1975–1978) South Africa (1975–1991) Zaire (1975) Material support: United States (1975–1991) Morocco (1970s) People's Republic of China (1975) FLEC
Commanders and leaders
Agostinho Neto (1975–1979) José Eduardo dos Santos Lúcio Lara Iko Carreira António Franca Fidel Castro Vasily Petrov Valentin Varennikov Sam Nujoma	Jonas Savimbi † Demosthenes Chilingutila Alberto Vinama Holden Roberto Luiz Ranque Franque Balthazar Johannes Vorster (1975–1978) Pieter Willem Botha (1978–1989)
Strength
MPLA troops: 40,000 (1976)–70,000 (1987) 130,000 (2001) Cuban troops: 35,000–37,000 (1982) 60,000 (1988) Soviet troops: Altogether 11,000 (1975 to 1991)	UNITA militants: 65,000 (1990, highest) FNLA militants: 22,000 (1975) 4,000–7,000 (1976) South African troops: 20,000 (1976)
Casualties and losses
Unknown 2,016–5,000 dead 15,000 total 54 killed	Unknown Unknown 2,038 dead (whole Border War figure)
Over 500,000 civilians dead

With regards to the belligerents, the current infobox is a horrific quagmire of unsourced, dubious, and invisible information that's been commented out. I went over all the sources and listed belligerents and revised that particular section, fixing a few problems such as: 1) separated FLEC from the rest of the belligerents because it was never allied with UNITA and the FNLA, or supported by their respective allies, 2) removed Brazil, Belarus, and the Russian Federation because these countries sold the MPLA regime arms but were never directly allied with it in the same way the Soviet Union and Cuba were, 3) added dates to the FNLA, the People's Republic of China, and South Africa to indicate when they ceased to be actors in the war, 4) added the ANC, Namibia, and the ex-Katangese gendarmes/FNLC to the infobox as active belligerents with plenty of ample sourcing, and 5) added North Korea as a supporting party with two additional primary sources.

I think this proposed revision of the infobox is more concise and more accurate than what's currently on the page. --Katangais (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The new infobox is going up. Anybody has any objections, feel free to discuss them here. --Katangais (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion of removal "desertors"

Hello Wiki users

I was checking into the matters of this war since a recent video, and i came upon a weird statement in the infobox on the actual wikipedia article that "50 000 Cuban soldiers deserted" during this war. It seems rather... Weird since a little over 300 000 Cubans went over there during the whole war, almost 1 out of 5 deserted in Angola ?

The only source for this statement is the following,

Horowitz, Irving Louis (1995). Cuban Communism/8th Editi. Transaction Publishers. p. 560

Which after research seems heavily biaised, the statement itself comes from a former Cuban General "56 000" (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1987-06-30-8702250398-story.html), which could (or not) include people trying to escape the military service in Cuba itself and not in Africa, and the name in english i suppose is "Conscientious objector" not desertors in that case.

I was wondering if it was possible to remove the statement from the statistics until it is supported by some other (non biaised) sources, because it feels like just an error or an overestimation or a voluntary mixup by people who doesn't really like the regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.140.196 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of it in the main article either, I think removing it until we can get a better source is a good call. RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Add Namibia on the map

Namibia was under the administration of South Africa until the South African Border War, i think the map should reflect this because its independence was directly connected to the Angolan civil war. Maybe color it light blue and add a note in the image description. RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) involvement in the the war mentioned in the body but not the infobox

The body mentions that the Republic of the Congo under Lissouba provided UNITA with bases in the ROC until the Angolan invasion, however the ROC is not mentioned in the infobox.ProculusOfAlbingaunum (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

History

The end of the cold war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.0.1.140 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

FNLA

It is necessary to add more content in the description of the political party FNLA since they were the first parties in Angola together with the MPLA and UNITA. The FNLA also played a part in awakening the Angolan people to an autonomous life as a nation. Aginacio (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Chinese support of UNITA (or lack thereof)

It says that China ceased supporting UNITA in October 1975. The war started in November of that year. If UNITA was not supported by the PRC by a month before the war even started, should it even be included? Genabab (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Honecker's Afrika Korps"

@1AmNobody24 The story of thousands of East German troops in Angola is a false and extremely exaggerated story circulated in western media in the 80's and the mind of boomers today.
Even the article from Tagesspiegel used as source for the involvment of "3,500 DDR paratroopers" in the infobox only talks about how this was a fake story. DDR only supplied some advisors and pilots to Angola (as the aforementioned source even says!) There were no DDR combat troops and Honecker was not a leader/commander in the Angolan civil war. 138.215.255.219 (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Tagesspiegel source says the 30,000 are fake and the 3,500 are assumed (source was a english newspaper, don't know which one.) Honecker was the Chairman of the State Council, the leader of East Germany at the time. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not. It first talks about the myth of "DDR Afrika Korps" and says that Die Welt/Spiegel invented "30,000 strong legion" while Süddeutsche Zeitung "suspected" a "3,500 strong legion" by referring to some claim from a British paper. Neither of these are true and the Tagesspiel article uses both as the examples of the myth of the "Honecker's Afrika Korps" in Angola. The second paragraph of the article talks about the reality of DDR support: non-combat support like transport pilots, "development workers", and arms dealing . 138.215.255.219 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"Neither of these are true " Any Proof for this statement?

To tell you the thruth: If you give me just one source that says it's a myth i'll agree with you and we can drop this issue. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

1AmNobody24
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/honeckers-afrika-korps-2282446.html
(Machine translated)"Here come Europe's Cubans," headlined "Time" in 1980 about alleged military operations of the GDR in Africa. Two years later, Die Welt reported that "Honecker's Africa Corps" was already 30,000 strong. This colonial-historical allusion had been invented by the "Spiegel", but in 1980 it counted only 2720 military advisers of the GDR in Africa, while the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" suspected two years earlier 3500 GDR paratroopers in Angola and referred to an English newspaper. She thus earned herself a denial by GDR Foreign Minister Oskar Fischer: "Something that is untrue does not become more true even through repetition.""
The article then goes on to talk about the kernel of truth behind these claims; the DDR's actual involmvent in Angola by way of disguised transport pilots, "development workers", and arms dealing. There exists no academic or historical sources, even after the end of the DDR, other than vague refernces to sensationalist headlines (often in the context of talking about them being untrue, such as the currently used source), which detail any (thens of) thousands strong legions of East German combat troops. Since the article also clearly states that the DDR advisors did not participate in combat missions, Honecker can also not be listed as a commander in the conflict.

So you have a english newspaper saying that there's 3,500 and and you have a German Foreign Minister saying that it's not true. Why trust the Minister more than the newspaper? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The paper than you dont even know? A paper that is even unmentioned in the article since their old allegations were not even real anyway?
And the minister is not the one trusted, but rather the fact that 40 years from then, after the end of the East German state, we now know that the claims made in those non-academic, non-historical magazines at the time were exaggerated fakes (again, as the article from the tagesspiel talks about...)
Can a proper historical book about the Angolan Civil War be found which talks about the thousands of DDR troops participating in the war today? No. Because this exists only in unfounded claims from the 1980's and in an article which references those fakes of the 1980's. The article is not a source for claiming that 3,500 paratroopers participated. That is only listed as an example of the fakes in Western media that the Minister denied before going on to say this denial was a bit hypocritical since there actually were some advisors and disguised pilots there. 138.215.255.219 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is not a source for claiming that 3,500 paratroopers participated. But it says that there is a source.

Can a proper historical book about the Angolan Civil War be found which talks about the thousands of DDR troops participating in the war today? If you have one that can be used as a source, link it.

As I said before: If you give me just one source that says it's a myth i'll agree with you 1AmNobody24 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

>If you give me just one source that says it's a myth i'll agree with you

Again, the source you used talk about how this was invented. Why are you ignoring this? It even gives you the real numbers of 2,720 personell in all of Africa at that time and says they were not involved in combat.

>Can a proper historical book about the Angolan Civil War be found which talks about the thousands of DDR troops participating in the war today? If you have one that can be used as a source, link it.

Thats trying to "prove a negative". The point was that no such book exists since thre were no such thing happening. No book will talk about the DDR legion just as no book will talk about the 50,000 strong Korean expeditionary force in the Angolan Civil War. Rather than trying proving a negative, where is the historical/academic proof detailing this legion? Of course there is none, because the fictious DDR legion did not exist in reality.

>But it says that there is a source.

The source you linked says that 2 years before 1980 (1978) some rag talked about how another rag claiming (made up) that 3,500 german paratroopers (combat troops) fought in Angola. 2 years later (1980) yet a third rag had inflated this to even 30,000. Luckily the esteemed tagesspiegel informs us that in 1980 the DDR had only 2,720 advisors/instructors/pilots in all of Africa and that the DDR did not undertake any combat operations. 138.215.255.219 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, the source you used talk about how this was invented And you don't have a different one?

No book will talk about the DDR legion I don't want one that talks about the DDR, but one that doesn't. You talked about proper historical book about the Angolan Civil War, show me one.

some rag talked about how another rag This just shows that you don't consider them reliable, but that doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

>And you don't have a different one?

Try "Geheime Solidarität : Militärbeziehungen und Militärhilfen der DDR in die Dritte Welt"

Its even used as source in the article already.

>I don't want one that talks about the DDR, but one that doesn't.

What does this even mean? The DDR's support for MPLA might well be mentioned in any book about the war, but that would be in relation to the ~2,700 personnel they sent to Angola and other African coutntries and not the any fictitous "thousands strong combat units", which only exists in the a few headlines from 40 years ago (as the Tagesspiegel article explains...) 138.215.255.219 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I've requested a third-opinion to get this sorted out. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well? 138.215.255.219 (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Still open here. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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 • Watch article reassessment page • 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)

The discussion above 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.