Talk:Battle of N'Djamena (2008)

France as a belligerent

France has provided both military aid and intelligence. Should they be named as a belligerent? --Agüeybaná 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if French soldiers take part of the battle (not just evacuating people). Narayanese (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

agree. I'm removing it --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be all for putting it back up. Reports are saying they've echanged fire with gunmen, and it looks like their jets are ready to do combat air patrols over the city now. Hoboron (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

France is claiming that their agreement with Chad only obliges them to protect Chad from foreign aggression, and since this is internal, they are not taking part militarily as of yet. Joshdboz (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

They are a belligerent, they have made reconnocence flights for the government, have stated that they will intervene if the rebels attack the city again, and two of their soldiers were wounded fighting rebels, if thats not being a belligerent than i don't know what is. XavierGreen

They've said they could intervene, but they haven't yet. Narayanese (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

two of their people were wounded fighting rebels, fighting rebels = belligerancy XavierGreen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.101.156 (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a belligerent, would suggest that they were willing to get involved in the combat, the exchange of fire between French army and the rebels was a return of fire in self defense. The French are not belligerent yet, as they have not conducted any attacks on the rebels as yet, this might change very soon depending on how the French government interprets the UN resolution asking members to support Chad government. Also, if you claim that two French soldiers have been wounded, you should cite your sources. Also it is not clear from the point of view the French military which side of the belligerent fired at them and whether it was really aimed at them as they were crossing the front line to evacuate civilians when it happened. . Blastwizard (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the ref for 2 wounded french [1]. But it says they were hit by stray bullets, and never says anything about a fight with rebels. Narayanese (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

allegedly

I am a bit curious, what is that supposed to mean in the info box?
Either they are belligerent or they are not, but 'allegedly' does not sound right, at least there should be a link/ref to explain what is meant by 'allegedly'. FFMG (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The rebels accuse the French air force of bombing them. Narayanese (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

please add more information

I think that

Soon after the beginning of the war, government forces repelled a rebel attack on the capital in 2006, when hundreds of people are thought to have been killed.

could be rephrased as

Soon after the beginning of the war in Month, year, government forces repelled a rebel attack on the capital in 2006, when hundreds of people are thought to have been killed.

What do you think?

please add more information

I think that

Soon after the beginning of the war, government forces repelled a rebel attack on the capital in 2006, when hundreds of people are thought to have been killed.

could be rephrased as

Soon after the beginning of the war in April 2006, government forces repelled a rebel attack on the capital, when hundreds of people are thought to have been killed.

What do you think? Kushal^t 01:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I changed that one. I also have another request.

Rebel forces began their advance on N'Djamena from near the eastern border with Sudan, in a column of 300 vehicles, each capable of carrying between 10 and 15 men.

can be

Rebel forces began their advance on N'Djamena from near the eastern border with Sudan on Month day, Year, in a column of 300 vehicles, each capable of carrying between 10 and 15 men.

I suppose? What do you think? Kushal^t 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --Rory096 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mirage 2000?

I added a link to the Dassault Mirage 2000 since I suppose it's the fighters the French military used, but I'm not sure. Can anyone confirm this? Snailwalker | talk 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included until further confirmation, because the French embassy website says that France has (or had) F-1 Mirages deployed there. Joshdboz (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay let's just wait for further information before adding specific links Snailwalker | talk 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You could add a link to Mirage F1 (CT or CR). Mirage 2000 are in Djibouti. The site of French Ministry of Defence mentions the withdrawal of 6 Mirage F1 and 2 Dassault Atlantique-2. F1s were based in N'Djamena and in Abéché (Camp Croci). --Shas3 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Sudanese support?

I've read news reports from Al-Jazeera and Reuters, with several local Chadians reporting that the Sudanese Army has been lending ground and air support to the rebels, I know this isn't confirmed, but is it worth mention? Hoboron (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

no, that's in the east of the country. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Sudan has consistently used this method in dealing with all its neighbours except Egypt and Ethiopia -- support extremists, destabilize governments, and export death and terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

The article claimed that "One resident of a western embassy told Reuters: "Rebels are headed for the palace and are about two blocks from here. The rebels are winning".

However, the quote is not present in the given source, which is from the BBC, so I have removed it. Superm401 - Talk 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And I can't find any mention of Soumain or his alleged death in the cited article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7224691.stm), so that's being removed too. Superm401 - Talk 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user claimed in an edit that http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2008/02/02/rebels_enter_chads_capital_fight_around_palace_1201954910/ had the Reuters quote, but I don't see it. However, the other article they cited (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/080202-chad-deby-rebels) does indeed report the death of Soumain (though it doesn't attribute the report to Hervé Morin), which I will note in a more accurate and NPOV way. Superm401 - Talk 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this cached page: [2]. Reuters changed their report afterwards. The same thing potentially goes for the rest you removed. And what was wrong with the cc-attribution licence on the smoke picture? The licence is at the end of the video, the video is linked from stopgenocidenow's homepage, and BBC confirms stopgenocidenow had people at le meridien. Narayanese (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut in two

I removed another apparently fake Reuters quote, which was placed by TheFEARgod, in this edit. Superm401 - Talk 04:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a fake quote, see this google search. It was picked up by hundreds of news outlets. Joshdboz (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Rebel victory?

The article said, "A witness in the city told the BBC that 30 army tanks were set on fire, the town was under the rebels' control and they were firing into the air in celebration.", but I only see the first part in the source (from the witness). As before, I'm removing the rest. Superm401 - Talk 04:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

seems reuters was altering the reports. I reverted you and added refs with the original text. That shows your accusations of "making up quotes" as rubbish. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

also, your doubt in Somain's death puts into question the knowledge of the events by your side. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV France allowing Chadian helicopters to take off

This is the point of view of the rebels. Chad is a sovereign state and the airport belongs to Chadian state, French forces are present there by virtue of a defense agreement with Chad and is therefore a guest and has no authority to prevent these take off. In addition preventing Chadian helicopters to take off would be a breach of the neutral stance and an hostile action against the "legitimate" government of Chad (as recognized internationally). Maybe the sentence could be rephrased as to specify that it is the rebels' spokesman opinion. Blastwizard (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense, maybe the whole paragraph should be removed altogether as helicopters taking off during a battle is kind of expected.

Unless there is a valid reason why this is important, (maybe France demanded that the Airport remained 'neutral' during the evacuation). FFMG (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blastwizard. It would have been far more a sign of French involvement if the troops hadn't let the Chadian airforce take off, as they did in the First Battle of N'Djamena in 1979, a decision that is read by scholars quite universally as France or at least the French commander there as having sided with the rebels.--Aldux (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, the rebels were holding off attacking the airport to allow the French to conduct the evacuation, but once it became apparent that the Chadian choppers were using the airport in between attacking rebel columns, they changed their mind. That being said, this pull-back seems to have prevented any attempted takeover of the airport. There's no problem with including the rebel's POV if it is stated as such. Joshdboz (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

It's ugly (gives indentation since the other participants don't have flag) and unhelpful clutter. Besides, WP:MILMOS#FLAGS recommends against it. Narayanese (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Moot point, I reread the Reuters source for JEM and it never said they and the rebels had actually clashed, so JEM has no place in the infobox anyway. Narayanese (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

GA-Pass

Good Job! If I were you, I'd recommend doing a little more work, and then going for FA. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! I take it you mean general tidying, but feel free to point out if you think a particular section needs expansion. And cheers! Narayanese (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I read it and didn't see too many errors with it, although I thought the lead could be expanded, and then cited. Although you may want to take the editor's below advice also. (copyedit) Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoah whoah whoah there Mark. I'm going to have to disagree with the rapid pass for a few reasons.

1: Well Written: Fail. Although the prose is generally good, I feel that the whole article could benefit from a copyedit. Of particular note:

• Although the lead does introduce the topic, I feel that it warrants some expansion.
• The naming conventions for the headers of some of the sections don't fit the Manual of Style for Wikipedia.
• I would attempt to cut the sentence about French involvement in Chad from the lead. It doesn't warrant an appearance in that arae of the article.
• For the dates given in the article, I would give the full date (day, month, year)

2: Factual Accuracy: Pass the whole article is excellently cited. You've done a good job on this section.

3: Coverage: Pass This article covers the whole topic, and to my knowledge contains no omissions or large gaps between information & events. No objections here.

4: Neutrality: Pass No evidence of bias and/or advocacy, although I would try to find a government reaction that supports Chad's rebels, simply to balance it out.

5: Stability: Pass There is no evidence of recent edit-warring.

6: Image Use: Pass. All images are appropriately tagged with copyright status & are well used.

As a result, I'm going to place this article "On Hold" after consulting with a few of the copyeditors with whom I'm familiar. I'll attempt to do some copyediting myself, but I feel that the CE is necessary before this article can achieve GA Status

thanks! this is the first article with a lot of my edits that is GA! Thanks to Narayanese for too. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's not quite there yet (on hold).

Which section heading do you have a problem with?

I have a feeling it will be hard to find a government that openly supports the Chadian rebels.

Yeah, I know. Just saying. If you can't find any, I have no objections. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean adding year ta all dates, or only to a few more dates that could be ambiguous? Narayanese (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Either or. I've seen both used successfully. If you mention July 19 at the beginning of a paragraph, and then mention July 20 & 21 later in the same paragraph, put [[July 19]][[2008]] on the first one, and then leave the others the way they are.Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the new caption for 4 february ("Government Re-enforcements & Counterattack") as the reinforcements weren't from the goverment. Those that were didn't reach the battle according to the rebels. But since there's a little doubt that JEM actually took part in battle (they sure tried to get to the city), I might be better to revert to an old heading that didn't mention reinforcements. Narayanese (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I reread the source for JEM, it seems the JEM–rebel clash was farther from N'Djamena. Narayanese (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to Prunier, a top scholar on the area who wote an article on Le Monde diplomatique which resumes the events of the battle and provides a larger background. If I'm remembering well, the JEM left Darfur where it was engaged in a major offensive to intercept a large Chadian rebel column which would have to provide strong backup, reaching it before it arrived to the capital. Thus the Chadian rebel column never reached N'Djamena and joined with the other forces only in Mongo. This is what I remember, but keep in mind I read it 2 months ago (the article should still be online).--Aldux (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Prunier's article has a number of details I haven't seen before. Looks like an ok newspaper, so should be citable. Time for some expanision in the battle section it seems. Is the lead better now btw? I could sure if I should add something about side events (like arrests and refugees) but I don't feel they'd add much to the lead, they're in the article mostly for completeness. Narayanese (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding copyedit: I went through the article before nominating and fixed what I saw. I don't know wheree you see a problem - I can read it just fine - so stick a clarifyme tag if there is a sentence that took more than one read to understand or is ambiguous.Narayanese (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say good work! The article is great I hope it passes--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Passing Article

Articlehistory errors on GA passes

The {{articlehistory}} was built incorrectly on the GA pass here, causing it to appear in the error category. Since I no longer have time to step back through the diffs and correct GA errors, I removed the articlehistory. Please contact the editor who passed the GA and ask him or her to read the instructions at Template:Articlehistory, or alternately, simply use the {{GA}} template and wait for the bot to build the history correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is on hold and is not a GA. Its original passing was too hasty and was placed on hold after a 2nd reviewer pointed out flaws that are awaiting correction. I've removed all GA references from the talk page headers. Thanks for removing it from the GA list. will381796 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh. Well the bot did catch it the first time. Gimmetrow 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dumping a link for possile use: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/central-africa/chad/Chad%20A%20New%20Conflict%20Resolution%20Framework.ashx Narayanese (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of N'Djamena (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080208113453/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gpgaDZJM1IASACtitW8CfgdtyNEAD8UK7DU80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gpgaDZJM1IASACtitW8CfgdtyNEAD8UK7DU80

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of N'Djamena (2008). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/02/ap4607212.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03617184.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108170053/http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/central-africa/chad/Chad%20A%20New%20Conflict%20Resolution%20Framework.ashx to http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/central-africa/chad/Chad%20A%20New%20Conflict%20Resolution%20Framework.ashx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713153942/http://www.kilil5.com/news/15106_chad-rebels-threaten-new-attack to http://www.kilil5.com/news/15106_chad-rebels-threaten-new-attack

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) 19:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of N'Djamena (2008). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504043955/http://www.apanews.net:80/apa.php/apa.php?page=ido_show_article&id_article=48768 to http://www.apanews.net/apa.php/apa.php?page=ido_show_article&id_article=48768
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=703323
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/2008-02-03-voa4.cfm?CFID=13686609&CFTOKEN=56670733

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) 12:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of N'Djamena (2008). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928064305/http://www.africanews.com/site/list_messages/15491 to http://www.africanews.com/site/list_messages/15491
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712232008/http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/SAS_ChadSudanproxywar.pdf to http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/SAS_ChadSudanproxywar.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130102115802/http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-2-5/65420.html to http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-2-5/65420.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.latribune.fr/info/Idriss-Deby-affirme-controler-tout-le-territoire-tchadien-081-~-TCHAD-20080206TXT-%24Db%3DNews/News.nsf-%24Channel%3DMonde
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713154139/http://www.kilil5.com/news/15121_chad-soldiers-block-flight-from- to http://www.kilil5.com/news/15121_chad-soldiers-block-flight-from-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603045510/http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17667 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17667
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/international/20080208.OBS9495/tchad__kouchner_dement_lintervention_des_forces_special.html

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) 04:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)