Jump to content

Talk:Mozambican Civil War

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


Start of hostilities

[edit]

An anonymous user changed the date 'On September 25, 1964, Frelimo solders, with logistical assistance from the surrounding population, attacked the administrative post at Chai in the province of Cabo Delgado' to 'On September 25, 1965, Frelimo solders, with logistical assistance from the surrounding population, attacked the administrative post at Chai in the province of Cabo Delgado .' Is this correct? Greenman 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search says no, so I reverted it. Icek 06:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renamo attrocities

[edit]

I want someone to cite credible sources for RENAMO's alleged widespread use of child soldiers, a concerted campaign against civilians, and a more balanced view of FRELIMO's own misdeeds. The section on RENAMO seems biased and whitewashes FRELIMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.29.1 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Rappatoni (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is biased in favor of Frelimo and against Renamo. The citations are actually a mess and unclear. On purpose? --105.14.232.49 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of the article

[edit]

I expanded the article and added some sources. However, there are still some sections which need better sourcing in my opinion. The information about the PCN stems from the article about Uria Simango. Unfortunately this article does not contain detailed sources. I will add the sources about the Rhodesian operations in Mozambique soon, just need to read some of the stuff provided in the Rhodesian Bush War article. By the way, simply "recycled" the maps from that article, because they seemed fitting. I hope this is ok with guidelines, I could not find anything about it.

The section about the Angolan Civil War seemed to me mainstreamy enough to not being in need of addtional sourcing but the corresponding sources can surely be found in the article about the Angolan Civil War.

What else...

Terminology: I used the terms "black"/"white" in the section about the Apartheid related conflicts. As I don't know which terminology is typically used in the African context, this seemed easiest to me, as "Native-Africans" is e.g. a term that applies for many whites in Africa too, especially for the Boers who have been araound for some 400 years. So things would get complicated here and I actually could not be bothered to use something like "Africans-of-European-Descent" (which strictly speaking still wouldn't be correct, since most Boers have some black ancestors). I think the "black/white" terminology is justified here, as this terminology surely describes best, how the conflict was perceived by the actors themselves (hence i.e. "Black Consciousness"). However, if there is a convention on terminology here that I am not aware of, please just change it.

And could please someone correct the article in terms of grammar and spelling? I try to do my best, but am not a native speaker, so there are surely errors.

Kindly,

Max Rapp --Rappatoni (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mozambican Civil War and the Cold War

[edit]

I've removed the Cold War section because it was unnecessary and misleading. FRELIMO maintained good relations with the West; RENAMO only had support from South Africa and Rhodesia, though they tried and failed to gain US backing (there was a RENAMO lobby in Washington that enjoyed the support of Jesse Helms and Bob Dole, but they were never successful in convincing Reagan). No real need to insert a Cold War context when it was almost non-existent; but if it must be mentioned, then it should be done properly. This would be a good place to start: http://books.google.ro/books?id=14YWKklpbTEC&pg=PA193#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.120.227.59 (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly right about the US not supporting RENAMO. However, as you mention above, there was a significant Pro-RENAMO lobby in the US as well as in other countries believing that RENAMO should be supported in order to fight communism. In fact, RENAMO did receive significant financial and organisational support from private sources and NGOs in the west. Apart from this, South Africa's Apartheid regime used the Cold War context to sell its own policy as "anti-communist". This may be a reason why the west failed to take more significant action against South Africa. All this is only understandable only within the context of cold war, "roll-back" etc. which is why I included this section. You are however right that it needs improvement and better sourcing. I will try to do that when I find the time to work on this article again. Or maybe - as you pointed out a possible source - you want to work on it?
Yours, --Rappatoni (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually got that source from the Wikipedia article on RENAMO, so copying the relevant bit from that article would be one idea. The South Africans tried to sell support for RENAMO as anti-communism, but they fortunately failed. To me, leaving the section as it was implied that they were successful; it described a strategy that worked elsewhere without mentioning that it didn't work here.89.120.227.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mozambican Civil War

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mozambican Civil War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "allafrica":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mozambican 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:

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: 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) 19:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mozambican 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:

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: 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) 08:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality

[edit]

Dear Arramall, are you aware that you edits are giving a strong Frelimo party point of view to an article that was supposed to be encyclopedically as neutral as possible? You even use the word "bandits" to describe Renamo fighters, something that even the current government of Mozambique does not do. Wikipedia should not be another department of the Party, or Notícias, TVM, etc. Teixant (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that perhaps the term "armed bandits" to refer to the MNR isn't too neutral and I will refrain from using it when referring to the MNR/RENAMO. I believe the rest of my additions/edits are neutral and should remain, particularly the parts regarding the destabilising efforts against FRELIMO by Rhodesia and the apartheid regime in South Africa, as modern academic consensus is that this was a war of destabilisation against FRELIMO and Mozambique. Arramall (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your revision was also riddled with dubious, subjective opinion fluff (the uncited assertion that RSA and Rhodesia were actively attempting to sabotage FRELIMO's domestic socialist goals rather than simply retaliating for the latter's support for ZANLA and MK; plus the equally uncitable assertion that FRELIMO was demanding "true independence" instead of a unilateral assumption of power). The blatantly partisan slant of that previous revision was appalling. I oppose any attempt to downplay or hide RENAMO's atrocities and the injustices that movement committed, but I likewise oppose this attempt to whitewash the facts in the interest of FRELIMO apologetics. --Katangais (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of wildlife

[edit]

It is my understanding that much of the wildlife populations were reduced from thousands to literally handfuls, single digits. Can this be added? 70.27.65.223 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mozambican_Civil_War&oldid=1194950112"