Talk:ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia

Africa: Gambia High‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	The Gambia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Gambia (assessed as High-importance).

Military history: African

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Casamance rebel involvement[edit]

--FPSTurkey (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the MFDC would get involved since the Gambian government had been clandestinely supporting them for years, but i hadn't seen any sources until now. They should be added to the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them. Looks like they're the main defense for Jammeh now as the army has defected. --FPSTurkey (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible rename[edit]

Would ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia,ECOWAS intervention in the Gambia, or even ECOWAS invasion of the Gambia seem like more appropriate titles? Invasion of the Gambia is a very loose title and could possibly be mistaken for the colonial take over in the 20th century. Also the ECOWAS forces are not planning to stay in the Gambia forever, so this could possibly be more accurately called an intervention rather than an invasion. Just my opinion though. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Gambia is the title that most news sources are calling it. There has never before been an invasion of the Gambia, as a colony it was founded after the Napoleonic wars and thus was never attacked or invaded by any other power before.XavierGreen (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be called an intervention, not an invasion. It is an external intervention into an internal dispute, not external aggression against a unified country. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources call it an invasion. Per WIKI common name, that is the term that should be used.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Some are, some aren't. e.g. Washington Post isn't. The Guardian isn't. NPR isn't. Adpete (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It should be called an intervention. ECOWAS is intervening in behalf of Adama Barrow. That is why I created the page under ECOWAS intervention in the Gambia, but it was merged into this article that was created a day before initial reports of military action appeared. ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia is an another possible title for this topic. Ceosad (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entering the Gambia at the request of the Gambian government is not an "invasion". 86.15.46.130 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Gambia itself is held by forces loyal to Yahya, foriegn troops hostile to his regime attacking the country is clearly an invasion by any definition, regardless of which the majority of sources call it an invasion.XavierGreen (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedias in other languages call this an intervention. All of them. It is pretty obvious that it should not be described as an invasion. I coincide that legal status of Yahua Jammeh as a president is unclear, but he (still) holds the post. Ceosad (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caps in title[edit]

See Talk:History of the Gambia#Requested move(s) – Move to uncapitalized article names and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 8#Subcategories of Category:The Gambia. Dustin (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Senegalese soldier count[edit]

In the infobox, the number of soldiers from Senegal is incorrectly reported to be 530 from an irrelevant source. The correct number should be 7000. Here is a source: "Gambia: Defeated leader Yahya Jammeh faces military showdown" Retrieved January 20, 2017. NapoleonKhan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Ceosad (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2017 ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia per consensus. Samuel Wiki (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Gambia → ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia – Per prior Talk page discussion, this was an intervention to resolve an internal breakdown of order, not an invasion of a unified country. The Gambia's military forces did not even oppose the intervention – the navy basically declared support for the "invaders" and the army said it was neutral. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wykx (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support more neutral title. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ceosad (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably better. Also I want to point out that I think the content about Casamance rebels fighting for Jammeh is questionable, and as far as I know no fighting actually occurred. Everyking (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article should probably be merged into the constiutional crisis page instead, since little or no fighting occured theres not enough information to warrant its own article.XavierGreen (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note perhaps '2017' should be in title. Smarkflea (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, neutral title. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into constitutional crisis article. Unnecessary to have a standalone article. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am not necessarily opposed to the merge, but I doubt it will happen – or at least that it will happen quickly. (For further discussion of the merge suggestion, please see Talk:2016–2017 Gambian constitutional crisis#Merge.) In the meantime, this article's title has an inappropriate POV connotation. It is not acceptable for it to remain with its current title. Also, someone was already complaining about the other article becoming too long, and merging all of the discussion of the military intervention into it will only make it longer. These also seem like somewhat separate topics – one is a Gambian internal matter, and the other is not. Note that United Nations Security Council Resolution 2337 has a separate article as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Samuel Wiki: there was no consensus for the year being in the title, only one person suggested it and nobody else agreed. It's unnecessary disambiguation. Could you fix this? ansh 666 19:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As far as I know, there haven't been any other ECOWAS military interventions in the Gambia that would provide a need for disambiguation. The person who mentioned including the year didn't even say they were convinced it should be included – they just said that "perhaps" the year should be in the title. That's a pretty weak suggestion. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words into my mouth. It was a suggestin because events often have dates. Smarkflea (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my remark was unclear. When I referred to the suggestion as "weak", I wasn't trying to criticize the merit of the suggestion. I was just saying that it wasn't expressed with very strong conviction. Yes, it is true that years are often included, per WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions, but "some articles do not need a year for disambiguation". I think this is one of those cases. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge my mistake and have got the page moved to the title without the year. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Wiki, I have fixed the move for you. Please correct any changes and fix any double redirects that may have resulted from this move. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone. ansh 666 05:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still ongoing?[edit]

Could you please help me to understand, why does its date in the infobox suggest, it is an ongoing conflict? Based on the description last date I've found is 21st January and Barrow returned on 26th. Thank you, if you can help me to understand. Ksanyi (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an ongoing conflict (at least not against organized opposing forces), but it is an ongoing intervention. About 2,500 ECOWAS troops are still there. Once things settle down enough, they will presumably leave and the intervention will be over. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]