This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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!--Aldux22:35, 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. Picaroon22:41, 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. Picaroon22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat mystified by beginning with the extension of the [[Chadian Civil War (1979-1982)|Chadian Civil War]] to northern Chad in 1968.87.112.88.20919:52, 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.--Aldux20:06, 6 October 2007 (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]
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]
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.
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.
"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]
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]
"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".
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.)
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]
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).
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: 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.
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
