Jump to content

Talk:M23 rebellion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Journalistic instead of encyclopedic approach

[edit]

This article, titled "M23 rebellion", hardly spends a word on the origins, development and objectives of the rebellion. Instead, it limits itself to keeping track of the rebellion's progresses and setbacks. A lot more work is needed on the "Background" section, with subsections for whatever different political and other factors led to the rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:540C:1:216:76FF:FE91:2064 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danger of recentism

[edit]

I think that - as the situation in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo is ongoing - we can be in danger of misleading readers by using very recently reported activity. It's difficult to check on the accuracy of news reports, and , bearing in mind that this is an encyclopedia and not a rolling news service - it may be wise to leave a two month gap between events (supposedly) taking place and writing them into the article. Any comments? (don't be shy - but don't be rude either) Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole premise of this article is recentist; should be in Kivu conflict as an outgrowth of the CNDP fighting. This would give *much* more context. I tried to upmerge this but was beaten back by the original editor. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, but I think it would be even more misleading to readers to leave out important current details, like the fall of Goma. While Wikipedia tries to avoid being weighted to current events, there's obvious value in having our articles up-to-date.
As for upmerging, I think I'd oppose that, too, at this point. A week ago the text of this article might have neatly fit into Kivu conflict, but now it seems long enough to be a legitimate WP:SPINOFF--we'd have to start deleting sourced information to fit it in to the general Kivu conflict article, and surely coverage of this situation is going to continue in the coming weeks. If context is a concern, perhaps another paragraph or two could be added to the background section here by an expert editor? Just my two cents. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Zimbabwe and Angola involvement

[edit]

There seems to be no sources mentioning that Zimbabwe is involved in the conflict. Kspnece92 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.6.31 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have removed this information accordingly. I'll try to dig up sources later to confirm/deny the involvement of these nations. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2012 East D.R. Congo conflict → M23 rebellion –

The title right now is kinda rough. When 2013 comes, it will become worse. Can we please change the title to M23 rebellion or M23 insurgency? (similar to Lord's Resistance Army insurgency).-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a mutiny, allegedly foreign-sponsored. --Niemti (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that rebellion is the more common term. A Google News search seems to confirm this.
"M23 rebellion": 512 results [1]
"M23 insurgency": 4 results [2]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M23 rebellion is the WP:commonname. We only use descriptive titles when common names are not available. I haven't seen any news article that calls this conflict the "2012 East D.R. Congo conflict". I requested a technical move because there is consensus here to move, not to seek your opinion. If you have sources that use "M23 rebellion" in another context, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, your argument about law-breakers on the highway is WP:OR.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so M23 = March 23 Movement. This depends on how many readers have heard of the March 23 Movement, and on top of that, how clear is abbreviating it to 'M23'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not people have heard of the rebel group is completely irrelevant. M23 is a VERY COMMON abbreviation used in the news media. DO a Google News search and you will find out. Again, "M23 rebellion" is a common name used in the news media to refer to the conflict. You have not provided any source that uses in the term ("M23 rebellion") in another context. Therefore, I don't see the problem with the proposed new title. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, saying that the 2012 East D.R. Congo conflict is a better title is like saying "1851-1864 Central China rebellion" is a better title than Taiping Rebellion because many people don't know what Taiping is. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, although "M23" itself is ambiguous, I doubt that "M23 rebellion" is ambiguous.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is this ongoing?

[edit]

Why not just merge it with the Kivu Conflict. No action in 3 months and the ceasefire seems to be holding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.18.206 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

time has told.(Lihaas (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
[edit]

>> With M23 gone, will other armed groups in Eastern DRC demobilise? >> Congo: Waiting for M24 or a real window of opportunity? [3](Lihaas (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M23 rebellion. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:M23_rebellion&oldid=1213065567"