Talk:Chadian–Libyan War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChadian–Libyan War has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 16, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Toyota War[edit]

I think the #Toyota War section has enough content to be split off into its own article, like what's been done to Opération Epervier and #Opération Epervier. It would certainly help with the length. Do others agree? Picaroon 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion Picaroon, it seems a great idea to me, and when I've finished the article I'll certainly create Toyota War. Have you any ideas to give me? I would really appreciate some criticism!--Aldux 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The textual content is certainly well-written and well cited. But the visual content is lacking. Images, even if they aren't completely on topic (like, say, one of Deby or Qaddafi just standing around) would make it look better - and easier to read. Also, a map showing the path of the advance and retreat of Libyan forces might help. I'll go check Commons to see if anything looks like it'll be useful. Picaroon 22:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an image, but there are two problems. One, the colors are a bit garish. Two, the rest of the article seems very unbalanced, because it has no images. Commons searches under "libya," "chad," and "aozou" didn't yield very much. I'll check articles on the politicians involved and see if the have anything. Picaroon 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict?[edit]

Why is it called "conflict"? Wasn't it a war?

62.152.110.130 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead could do with some work, but I don't know where to start :| - Francis Tyers · 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent dates?[edit]

I am somewhat mystified by beginning with the extension of the [[Chadian Civil War (1979-1982)|Chadian Civil War]] to northern Chad in 1968. 87.112.88.209 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for that title. What is agreed by consensus among Chadianists is that the civil war erupted in 1965 with the Mangalmé riots and the foundation of the FROLINAT in 1966. What is pretty confusing is not when it started, but when it ended; various dates have been given, the most common being 1987, 1990 and 1993.--Aldux 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I think if there are some more ilustration this article can become featured article.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chadian–Libyan conflict/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll be glad to do this review. I'll do a thorough readthrough of the article's prose first, noting any initial issues, and then I'll begin the formal checklist. I hope to do most of this tomorrow, otherwise it may have to wait until Monday. Looking forward to working with you -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First readthrough[edit]

  • The three ibids should be changed to more explicit citations. Do you have access to these sources, and can you verify that the page numbers are indeed to the previous source in the reference list? Sometimes these get mixed up in WP articles when someone inserts additional information. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I looked up the pages for those three and verified that they were the correct sources for that info :) Jeancey (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting to that so fast! I'm doing a slow readthrough now, and will post a few more miscellaneous points when finished. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "state of sporadic warfare events" is unusual phrasing; I wonder if just removing the word "events" would work better. "Sporadic warfare" seems to sum it up fairly.
 Done. I think. I changed it to a series of sporadic clashes, since when I tried some other options, it just didn't sound right to me. This could still change though. Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "military pattern of the war" -- the word "military" seems redundant here (a war's pattern could be assumed to be "military"), but I won't change it in case I'm misunderstanding.
 Done. That made sense to me. Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to me a bit overlinked. I've delinked some common terms (major world religions, country names, etc.) that readers are very unlikely to click through to. However, this isn't a factor in the GA criteria at all, and if you revert all of these, I won't be the least offended, and it won't affect a bit whether this article is listed/unlisted.
  • The external link [1] seems unnecessary; it only gives a bit of passing information about the conflict, and isn't a major resource. I'd suggest incorporating it into the text (or not) and removing it, but that's not a factor for the GA criteria and won't impact the review.
 Done. I commented it out for now, and I'll look into incorporating it into the article when I have a good chuck of time :). Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nominated Goukouni as the secretary-general" -- was he only nominated, or actually named to the post?
From what I can tell, he was just nominated, but more conflict prevented any official transfer of power to him. I'll look into this more tomorrow. Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then; just wanted to verify. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Sudan's Vice-President" --for parallelism with the Nigerien president, can we include his name? If you don't have it for sure, no problem.
 Done. It's a red link, but I added it. Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Kano Accord was signed on 16 March by all those present" -- what were the terms of this accord? Are the actions that follow directly called for by it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. The directly following sentences were from the accord. The Wikipage about the accord has all the terms, there are 6 main terms and several smaller ones, but the main terms are mentioned in the paragraph there, including the resignations, formation of GUNT as a national army, amnesty for those involved (politically). Those were the main terms, and I think all but the amnesty was mentioned, but since they were mentioned as part of the government after the accord, it's clear they weren't arrested or anything. Jeancey (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GDR is once called East Germany, once the German Democratic Republic; I'd suggest sticking with one name or the other throughout the article for clarity. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Changed it to east germany, since that would be the least confusing for people I think. Jeancey (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leaving 700 FANT troops on the ground" -- wounded or dead? Or is it unclear from the source?
I actually don't have access to this source until after the new year, so this one will probably have to wait until then. Jeancey (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pichipichi FROLINAT Originel" -- what does pichipichi mean here? This could probably use a link or an explanatory footnote.
 Done. Sort of. I can't find any definition for pichipichi in this context, but I believe it means piecemeal, or fragmented, because the Original FROLINAT was basically a group of veterans from the first FROLINAT who joined together, it wasn't a formal military force as far as I can tell. More like a well trained militia. so I replaced pichipichi with piecemeal. Jeancey (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also through the use of napalm and, allegedly, poison gas." Uncertain allegations of chemical weapon use should probably get an inline source right at the end of the sentence. Is this from Nolutshungu or Pollack? (Or both?)
 Done. The use of napalm is for sure, and the chadian government accused them of using poison gas, but the french said there was no evidence of that, so I have removed the poison gas bit. Jeancey (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think it'd be fine to say that "the Chadian government accused them of..." just as you did here, adding the French denial. But I think it's fine to remove it, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Libyan retaliation against France and the United States" --I'm not sure I understand this section title. How did Libya retaliate against France and the US? Or does it simply mean that Gaddafi was angry with the two countries? I wonder if this might just be combined into "Aftermath".
 Done. I also replaced a dead link that was there and I hadn't noticed. Jeancey (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a factor for the GA review, but I'd suggest at some point revising the article's structure; instead of one Level-2 header and thirteen Level-3 headers, it might be prefereable to have those 13 divided between 3-4 Level-2 headers.
I'll try to get to this in the next week or so. I have an idea about how it can be divided, but I don't have the time right now :) Jeancey (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " J. Jessup, An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Conflict, p. 116" -- it's not an issue for the GA review, but this could use a fuller citation (publisher, year, etc.)
 Done. Added it to the book references below. Jeancey (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this looks like really solid work to me. I still need to check for a few things, but the article is comprehensive and well-written, and does a terrific job breaking down a very complicated situation for a non-expert reader. I'll begin the checklist at some point today or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Impressively clear for the complexity of the subject. Ten spot checks of sources show no evidence of close paraphrasing or other copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images are properly tagged with copyright status, and the non-free image in the infobox was previously approved for use in the article.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Excellent work.

France losses[edit]

Why the Jaguars lost are not in the losses table. Same for Zaire Mirage 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.165.242.55 (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chadian–Libyan conflict. 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: 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) 11:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

I do not want an edit war to happen so I will address the results of the battle here. The Chadian-Libyan war encompasses many battles like the Battle of Fada, Battle of Aouzou, Second Battle of N’Djamena and many others. Within the territorial results it just seems to include the same as the Toyota War, however considering this is a long conflict we should acknowledge the other parts. We must acknowledge that it is true that Libya had occupied all of Chad and had occupied the Aouzou Strip. If we analyse the battle we can also see that originally the Libyan leader simply wanted the government to be toppled which did happened in the 1990 Chadian Coup. TheHistorian100 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for your assumption? The sources currently listed in this article are fairly certain that the war was a major Libyan defeat. Applodion (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When we mention the Chadian-Libyan war, we must understand that it is in reference to every battle and operation that took place. We both agree that the Libyans were defeated at one point by the Chadians; however, this page does not show a good representation of what happened throughout the whole conflict. Even in the "Territorial changes" section, we are only shown that at the end of the conflict, Chad regains control. Contrary to this, we must acknowledge the other events that took place during this long conflict. These events include
- Second Battle of N'Djamena
- Operation Manta
- Battle of Aouzou
- Battle of Fada
- Etc
It is more coherent to add all the events that took place during the conflict in contrast to just the ending. TheHistorian100 (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Do you have sources calling this a Libyan victory? Per WP:OR, we cannot just draw our own conclusions, but have to follow reliable sources such as scholarly books. And all sources I have seen so far call this a Libyan defeat. Applodion (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You blatantly disregarded what I said. We are not drawing our own conclusions we are simply looking at the war as a whole, in contrast to cherry-picking one specific event. The reliable sources you claim are scholarly books never claim that the “Chadian-Libyan War” as a whole is a Libyan defeat, however says there were times where the Libyans were defeated. I looked over the sources again and most of them do not assert such a reference, they actually help my case by going through every single event that happened throughout the war. The reliable sources you’re referring to are in mention to the last events of the war . TheHistorian100 (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The reliable sources you claim are scholarly books never claim that the 'Chadian-Libyan War' as a whole is a Libyan defeat" - actually, they do. Applodion (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which specifically? If you have time to quote them. TheHistorian100 (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples: Jonathan K. Zartman in Conflict in the Modern Middle East outright states "[talking about Khalifa Haftar] He also led Libyan forces in the Chadian-Libyan War (1978–1987). However, Chad defeated the Libyan forces and captured him"; Alison Pargeter describes the entire war as a Libyan defeat in Chapter 5 of Libya: The Rise and Fall of Qaddafi; in Kenneth Michael Pollack's Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, 1987 was described as "final Libyan defeat" made possible due to Chadian efforts stemming to 1985/86. Libya: Continuity and Change and A History of Modern Libya also describe the entire Libyan intervention as a failure and "humiliating defeat". Applodion (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Borderlands" claim[edit]

The Borderlands (only called that by Libya btw)

Surely there should be some mention of Libya's claim over what it called the Borderlands region? This included the Aouzou Strip and much of northern Chad. For sources go to Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute case. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add this context to the article. Applodion (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chadian–Libyan_War&oldid=1206604453"