Talk:Portuguese Colonial War
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
So, I've removed Malawi from the list of supporters of Portugal on the infobox. My research-- and forgive me, I'm not sure how to format links, so I'm going to copy/paste the URL's-- suggests that while Malawi tried to avoid antagonizing Portugal, it would be a stretch to call them "pro-Portuguese".
Link 1: (https://books.google.com/books?id=vLzp_zs1t6cC&pg=PA524&lpg=PA524&dq=malawi+frelimo&source=bl&ots=xcFR82Y5SD&sig=rlbpA7am-2767Fzl9EXV8icTGJE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBmoVChMIwvKe84yLxwIVklKSCh1vTA81#v=onepage&q=malawi%20frelimo&f=false) In this link from a History of Mozambique, we see that Malawi's leader Hastings Banda tried to stop FRELIMO from using Malawi as a staging ground to attack Portuguese targets in 1965. That doesn't mean he was pro-Portugal; it could just mean he didn't want to be dragged into the war.
Link 2: (https://books.google.com/books?id=FuXPkCVjzasC&pg=PA309&lpg=PA309&dq=malawi+frelimo&source=bl&ots=9xkF0f2dDf&sig=KKR7uKvnYGgHZXYtG9lYYe2x5wc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDoQ6AEwB2oVChMIwvKe84yLxwIVklKSCh1vTA81#v=onepage&q=malawi%20frelimo&f=false) This link, from a Historical Dictionary of Malawi is more specific about Malawi's role. It states that Banda allowed FRELIMO to maintain an office in Blantyre, but prohibited them from using Malawian territory to attack Portuguese targets, as discussed above. It further says that when Mozambique achieved independence, Malawi "applauded the change and supported Mozambican independence." Again, this hardly sounds like they're pro-Portuguese.
So, that is my justification for removing Malawi from the Portuguese camp on the infobox. If anyone objects, I would be happy to discuss it here or on my talk page (ideally here, as it's more "centrally located"). Again, my apologies for the unformatted links. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- A little follow-up: User:184.108.40.206 attempted to re-add Malawi with a source. The source in question is a book called Prominent African Leaders Since Independence. It appears to be either a self-published book or a publish-on-demand book, judging by the cover design. The author, Bridgette Kasuka, has written or edited other books with titles like African Leaders, Leaders of Post-Colonial Africa, and Independence Leaders of Africa. Some of these books are published by CreateSpace or by something called the New Africa Press. If you look at the entry for Leopold Sedar Senghor in African Leaders (which you can do on Amazon), you will find that it is plagiarized word-for-word from Senghor's English Wikipedia article. I'm aware that books based on Wikipedia articles do get published, but they still shouldn't be used as sources for Wikipedia, which strives to avoid self-referentiality. So, taking all of this into consideration, I think it safe to say that Bridgette Kasuka's books are not reliable sources. I have therefore once again removed Malawi from the list of countries that supported Portugal in the war. Again, if someone can provide a reliable source to support Malawi being pro-Portugual, I will happily let it stand. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
On the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment
Greetings. I've added a dubious tag to the claim that the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment was "formed" and "copied" from the Batalhão de Cavalaria 1927 (1927 Cavalry Battalion), because at the article for Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment (which redirects to Rhodesian Armoured Corps), it states that the unit had existed since WWII and saw service in Italy. My question then is: which is it?
The sentence under dispute is worded like this: "Again the Rhodesians would copy this concept forming the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment." The way this sentence reads, it clearly states that the Rhodesian unit was formed from the concept of Batalhão de Cavalaria 1927. Perhaps it's just an issue of phrasing? Perhaps the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment already existed but took cues from the Portuguese unit? Or perhaps we have a misguided redirect, and the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment mentioned in this article is distinct from the Rhodesian Armoured Corps that it links to? Clarity on this issue from an expert on this topic would be much appreciated. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Currently, it is more than four paragraphs. As complex as the subject, per MOS:LEAD, we should appeal the reader more without giving too many details. Well, most readers read just the lead and run off to another page after page reading just intros. Normally, no more than four paragraphs is encouraged. Id est if more than four paragraphs, then there should be no more than five. See Napoleon as example. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Armament and Tactics
Could we cut some of the text giving the minutiae about every rifle ever used by anyone during the conflict? As far as I can see, very little of the section entitled "Armament and tactics" is actually important to understanding the history of the conflict...—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Armament and tactics are fundamental to the fighting of any conflict, and small arms in particular in successfully fighting a guerrilla war, which is what took place during the PCW. As Mao said, Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun [not flowers]. -Dellant (talk). 2 September 2016