Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Gao

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:COMMONNAME?

[edit]

Are there any sources that actually refer to this event as the "Battle of Gao"? Per WP:COMMONNAME, I'm not sure we should call it that unless our sources are. Khazar2 (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

To Battle of Gao and Timbuktu? the latter is larger now and more notableLihaas (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BOLDly  DoneLihaas (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be undone, there was no fighting in Timbuktu at all, the MNLA withdrew without a fight. The so called Battle of Timbuktu that the page asserts, did not even happen.XavierGreen (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They did take control. hats a batle, however ti happened.Lihaas (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, a battle is a military conflict between two armed forces. The MNLA made a tactical withdrawl from Timbuktu to specifically avoid having to fight a battle there (that they felt they would lose).XavierGreen (talk)
Is there a source on that "tactics withdrawal" that there was no violence/threats.Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd weakly support the title of "Gao and Timbuktu". The news coverage has been regularly lumping the events in the two cities together. I'd be fine with finding another phrasing, but it makes sense to include the events of the two cities in the same article. Khazar2 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even the capture compromise seems fgood.Lihaas (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well its been several months without counter-commentss. Ill move it back to the two names?Lihaas (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a reliable source for this title. WP:No original research applies for titles as well. --RJFF (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning? Theres no RS souce that calls it battle of gao either? thats WP naming convention just the same. Its OR title here too
And per above what is a "military conlflict" if not a batle?Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gao #2 is ongoing. Any suggestion for this? Such as naming this as Battle for Azawad (in this case, we can put in every detail and fights between MNLA and islamic groups), and name the new battle between French and mali versus islamic groups as Battle of Gao. Kadrun (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The battle of Gao, with Timbiktu captured on the aftermath, is consistent. However there should be either a merge, or "second battle of gao" to describe the French malian recapture of Gao and timbuktu on 26-27 january 201386.66.196.163 (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MNLA spokesman is not a reliable source

[edit]

So far the presence of Moktar Bel Moktar in the infobox seems to entirely rely on a quotation from Azawad's Vice President. Can a reliable source be found for this information instead? Khazar2 (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, we have a number of non-ideal sources on this page, including a MUJAO spokesman (who certainly can be no more neutral than Maiga) and Algerian news media (though in this case it cames through Reuters which may give it some degree of legitimacy). --Yalens (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mausoleum name

[edit]

Is Sidi Yahya Mosque the same as Sidi El Mokhtar ? Found mention of the latter without the Sidi prefix on the wikilink, but im not sure. They sem to be th enotable ones in the area and are mentioned in the UNESCO link on the page.(Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Combatants

[edit]

Im a bit weary of listing the MNLA under Azawad because its not explicit that the Islamists renounce the claim there, they did sign the cooperation agreement and, although they couldnt work together, they may still recognise sovereingty from Mali (after the destructions i dont think they recognise Bamakos writ)(Lihaas (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

The MNLA runs Azawad.XavierGreen (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Islamists' official stance is that they actually oppose the creation of Azawad and want to control all of Mali. --Yalens (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the MNLA's writ is dubious at best.Lihaas (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Timbuktu?

[edit]

What is Timbuktu placed in the title and why in the "Battle of Gao" there the destruction of religious tombs in Timbuktu? This is totally different. The battle in Gao is not the destruction of religious tombs in Timbuktu. It is apples and oranges.--Remzone (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)4[reply]

Theyd be 2 stubs. see above.Lihaas (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This does not consitite a discussion or consensusLihaas (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

[edit]

Basically, I don't see why we have a link to the page Aftermath of the Libyan civil war on the grounds that both featured destruction of Sufi shrines, when those events aren't even covered on the page linked to. --Yalens (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP: See also reads "of internal links to related Wikipedia articles". Thats when stuff happened in Libya, and i remember reading it at one point. I dont know if its removed there, but ill take a look and add stuff there and then readd the linkLihaas (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Per this, the links are of more than "low value" as it adds context to what is being said. Also per IAR against MOSl; and the Tuareg rebellion page upon editor insistence to stick on overlinks despite te rules where IAR was implicitly invoked.Lihaas (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that linking to Allah from "God" provides such unusually valuable context that it's worth violating the MOS here; the same for linking Mohammad from "The Prophet". Linking "Religions of the ancient Near East" for Sufi masolea seems flat-out inaccurate, and a good example of why the MOS has this rule in the first place. Since these links don't make much sense to me, I'd like to hold out for a third opinion before we decide to Ignore All Rules here if that's okay with you. Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the difference of Arab paganism and what the prophet called for and why (he wanted to take the heritage of polytheism out), hence it would be deceptive and pov to simply state "god called for the destructions". The context behind what it was is relevant. I can agree on the prophet (though there is no link to who the prophet is, and while people who know will get the connection, not all readers would. Allah was referenced as in the first, to show the orignal pagan context.Lihaas (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd like to hold out for a third opinion since this is an Ignore All Rules case where we disagree. I'm also surprised that you've twice reverted my corrections of spelling errors, citations, italicization error, etc. on unrelated edits... do be careful with that. =) Khazar2 (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, that was an (edit conflict), see the summary. We two dont war ;)
Its back on, no?Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it needs to be said

[edit]
This is a duplicate discussion; please see Talk:Battle_of_Gao#Rename. Khazar2 (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I wrote this page about what happenned in Gao, the military battle between the MNLA and the Islamists. An user named Lihaas is hijacking this page, renaming it without asking and complaining when I take it back to his original name.

The Battle of Gao is not the destruction of some tombs in Timbuktu. Different places, differents events, different page. This page is exclusively about the military battle in Gao.

If Lihaas you want to talk about Timbuktu, go start this page. Here, you are just hijacking my page and doing stupid things with it. "Battle of Timbuktu" when there has been no battle in Timbuktu. "Capture of Timbuktu" like you proposed is a similar failure since Timbuktu was already at the hand of the islamist. Just give up and start your own page with this different event.--Remzone (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:NOTAFORUM, and you dont WP:OWN the [age. YOu can start a weblog if you really ant to control it. There is a discussion above about a move and others dont poppose it. You have had multiple warnings and you dont seen to get the WP policies.Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There is no consensus/discussion on such edits where consensus is leaning against you an dyou have many polite warnigs to partake in wipedia procedures. [1][2][3][4]
As for these: thats why we have move tags to generate discussion: [5][6]Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful to you for starting this page, Remzone, and your continued work on it. But Lihaas is right that none of us "own" pages per the policy he cites. Lihaas has every right to move the page, and he, I, and other users have every right to continue adding information about this event as a whole (the developments in the cities of Azawad this month). I agree with you that it's tricky to decide how to divide this up--whether we should treat it separately, or combine it--but that's something best solved by discussion with several users, not calling names and getting personally angry. Your thoughts would be welcome in the discussion on this above. Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Remzone that this article should be labeled Battle of Gao. There was no battle in Timbuktu, the MNLA withdrew without a fight after the fighting in Gao took place. The current title is inaccurate.XavierGreen (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone wouldn't mind, let's try to get this discussion all moved up to the naming section above; having it split between two threads is only going to create confusion. Khazar2 (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Media mentions

[edit]

These are in italics (and more so on GA/FA). [7][8]Lihaas (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. They're not in italics at their own articles, and news groups like the New York Times write them without italics [9]. GA/FA may well be wrong in this case. Khazar2 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey well, not gonna war. Lets see what othershave to say. Seemed to be conventions thoughLihaas (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merging of Islamist_destruction_of_Timbuktu_heritage_sites

[edit]
Been well over a month without comment. Closing this now. Feel free to open a new move discussion if need be.Lihaas (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, I noticed that Islamist_destruction_of_Timbuktu_heritage_sites might be deleted and merged. I have backed up the original article on my new web site in case you need it . James Michael DuPont (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging might be a better idea, unless "Islamist destruction of Timbuktu heritage sites" is renamed "Destruction of Timbuktu Islamic Heritage Sites by Extremist Muslims." The sites are, as far as I've found, all Islamic in nature. It concerns me that the original version of the IdoTHS article included a Tusken Raider from Star Wars with the caption "A nomadic islamist fighter from the arid climate of the Aïr Mountains in the Sahara." That that article's creator has also created a category called Islam-inspired destruction of cultural heritage and engaged in this bit of deception makes me think the IdoTHS page is only a POV-coatrack that needs to be moved back here and properly managed. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See move discussion above that had other ideas.Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battles of Gao and Timbuktu. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Gao&oldid=1206168081"