Talk:Sierra Leone Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Sierra Leone.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] To avoid copyright issues:

This from source US State Department [1]

Links to Department sites are welcomed. Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Department of State Web Site is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated.

This from source AFROL

Quoting "afrol News" as your source, you are hereby allowed to reproduce parts of that article.

Regards,

Rainer Chr Hennig

afrol News

[edit] Charles Taylor - scrupulous?

Could someone please explain why Charles Taylor was called a scrupulous faction leader? Is this a confusion with unscrupulous, or is Taylor scrupulous in some other way? Until someone can explain this, I am removing the adjective altogether. For the record, Wiktionary defines scrupulous as:

1. meticulous 2. having scruples or compunctions 3. having principles that guarantee scruples don't arise AidanBC 23:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPMILHIST Assessment

An excellent article, long, thorough, detailed, presumably accurate, and seemingly largely if not entirely unbiased - I'll admit, I skimmed, didn't read the whole thing.

  • I'm not quite sure what I think about the objectivity (i.e. the non-bias) of the opening paragraph. It seems to imply that the sole significant element of this conflict was its cost in human lives and in displacement of refugees. I think the introduction would be more balanced if it discussed, albeit briefly, the causes and effects of the war, in political and historical terms.
  • The section "Where are they now?" could probably benefit from being retitled. It's a simple and compelling chapter title, but not particularly academic or encyclopedic. "Activities of key figures in the aftermath of the civil war" or "Current activities and whereabouts of key actors", while clunky, might be better.
  • Also, please consolidate your references & bibliography. LordAmeth 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kabbah at TaRC

I'm taking out that Kabbah was unstatesmenlike. It seems a bit slanderous, and thus is in violation of the policy on biographical material on living persons (see WP:LIVING). Reading his opening speech, he seems sincerely interested in promoting peace and progress. [2]. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation template

I started going through the article citing sources for numbers and things like that and I got a bit overwhelmed. I agree that the article could use some lengthening, but for now, I was wondering: rather than putting the citation template, could we maybe put citation needed ({{fact}}) tags next to statements that are "likely to be contested" or wherever you think they are needed. Most of this stuff is fact-y type stuff that you can find in any history book (Hirsch works for almost all of it dated before 2000) or in BBC news articles. Do we really need each and every sentence cited? (P.S. sorry for the American spelling, which anon changed. My spell check is American, and I rarely know and never much care which words have alternate spellings.) Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 17:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing every sentence would, of course, be disproportionate. But a topic of this nature is liable to be subject to diverging (often contradictory) interpretations and accounts, hence it is preferable that the article's content be verified using reliable sources; that would entail the extensive distribution of citations (albeit in moderation;-). Arbitrary numbers aside, compare this article with Algerian War and American Civil War). Examples such as "...the former president of Liberia, then a faction leader in Liberia's civil war — reportedly sponsored the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) as a means to destabilize Sierra Leone..." and "...Under Momoh, APC rule was increasingly marked by abuses of power..." logically require attribution. Your additions have certainly alleviated the article's citation problem, so I do support the replacement of {{unreferenced}} with the selective placing of {{fact}} tags. I must add, however, that the cites you introduced should be converted to <ref> format. SoLando (Talk) 08:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I generally use footnotes (<ref> tag) for things that need some explanation in their citation, and Harvard-like style for short little citations. I'd be fine with using only footnotes, but I never know if I'm supposed to cite things over and over or <ref name=> and "cite footnote more than once" (which doesn't work when different page numbers are used). It would also be pretty easy to put ref tags around citations, as in the Johannes Kepler article WP:CITE mentions. I never care how things are referenced. Anyway, I'll keep working on finding citations. The lines you mentioned should be pretty easy to cite. Right now there isn't near as much depth in this article as in the ones you mentioned, so the facts aren't as liable to multiple interpretations yet. But as we get there, I agree that having a culture of citation around an article is key. Anyway, does the ref tag + extra bibliography make since, or do you prefer just the ref tag? Smmurphy(Talk) 19:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if this (very late) reply is redundant. Yes, there is no provision stipulating a certain style of formatting - my previous remark merely revealed preferences ;-) I would suggest adopting that format, however, as Harvard-style (to me) appears quite cumbersome and clutters paragraphs in articles that require comprehensive sourcing. Incidentally, I invariably use <ref name=> only when attributing multiple facts to a single page, or when informations is encompassed by sequential pages; I invariably specify its relation to the material using an author and theme (e.g. <ref name="Hitsch Freetown">). But even with the guidance of the MoS, exercising discretion is advisable as how one utilises sources is inherently subjective. While the examples I presented are arguably elementary in the context of those familiar with the conflict (not even taking into account Taylor's war crime charges), it is still preferable to source them to pre-emptively resolve possible disputes and provide...."reassurance" to those learning about the conflict. Indeed, it is essential if this article is to ultimately attain a status of recognition from the community (A-class, GA, FA), as that trend is so evident at WP:FAC. Such hope is arguably premature, however, as there are more fundamental problems that need to be addressed before such a nomination can even be considered. Can I just assure you that I really don't gripe this often! ;-) And please refer to King's Regiment (Liverpool) for an example of my preferred format. By the way, I've just obtained Hirsch's book. Interesting. SoLando (Talk) 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I like the style of the King's Regiment page you linked to. I hope you haven't taken my use of the Hirsch book as a recommendation. The book is pretty bland, to my taste. Its a bit short, and now out-of-date, but it is well respected and easy to leaf through, so its a good source for citations. Let me know if you have any ideas about how to make this page better, though. I made some heavy-ish contributions here a while ago, but my energy for it petered out... Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lemon?

"Lemon, the Governor-General (representing the British Monarch) declared Siaka Stevens—APC leader and Mayor of Freetown—as the new Prime Minister." Who is Lemon? I can't find anything out about anyone named that. Recury 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No idea, here is the List of Governors-General of Sierra Leone, no Lemon. I think the section needs some rework. Perhaps such early events belong more in the history of Sierra Leone article, as it came a generation before the civil war itself. The again... Smmurphy(Talk) 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that I look through the history, someone just changed the word "Accordingly" to "Lemon" as part of a series of vandalisms. Also, most of the section on the civil war itself is copied verbatim from here. Recury 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)