Talk:MISCA

Page title
The official name of this article should be that of what the groups is called. Bear in mind GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for a move. Also per BRD, the move to the short form was reverted so please come here.
 * For the record the "african-led" title is not mine(Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)).


 * WP:BRD is a helpful essay, but it isn't a license to ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * As explained at WP:COMMONNAME (to which I linked when performing the move), "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."
 * In this instance, English-language reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the subject as "MISCA".
 * Had you read WP:GOOGLEHITS before citing it, you'd have seen the explanation that a Google News search is not the same as a Google Web search. —David Levy 22:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Had you read WP:GOOGLEHITS before citing it, you'd have seen the explanation that a Google News search is not the same as a Google Web search. —David Levy 22:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless your ONLY evidentce is google. Google is not an arbiter.
 * You dimiss some criteria but cite others. Perhaps wait for discussion on consensus as the BOLD move was REVERTEFD and CONSENSUS avoids aedit wars.(Lihaas (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)).


 * Again, as explained on the page that you cited, Google News search ≠ Google Web search. It's a news aggregator, not a general search engine.
 * What criteria have I dismissed?
 * Again, WP:BRD is a helpful essay, but it doesn't supersede Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've pointed to Article titles (a policy) and Manual of Style/Abbreviations (a guideline).  You, conversely, have noted that "many UN groups have spelt out name" and argued that we should use the "official name".  These rationales have no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and, in fact, are directly contradicted).  —David Levy 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What criteria have I dismissed?
 * Again, WP:BRD is a helpful essay, but it doesn't supersede Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've pointed to Article titles (a policy) and Manual of Style/Abbreviations (a guideline).  You, conversely, have noted that "many UN groups have spelt out name" and argued that we should use the "official name".  These rationales have no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and, in fact, are directly contradicted).  —David Levy 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:BRD is a helpful essay, but it doesn't supersede Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've pointed to Article titles (a policy) and Manual of Style/Abbreviations (a guideline).  You, conversely, have noted that "many UN groups have spelt out name" and argued that we should use the "official name".  These rationales have no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and, in fact, are directly contradicted).  —David Levy 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Chadian & Burundi troops fire on each other, Dec 23, 2013.
According to the Burundians, after the skirmish the Chadian troops then freed the ex-Seleka members the Burundian were disarming.

The French have also accused the Chadians of siding w/ the ex-Seleka members.

http://news.yahoo.com/burundi-chad-peacekeepers-exchange-fire-c-africa-072041232.html [AFP] "The Chadian troops within the 3,700 MISCA African force are accused by the force commanders and by French troops deployed in Bangui of siding with the ex-Seleka rebels the force it is supposed to disarm." -=-=- 74.60.161.158 (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> UN: Chad soldiers killed 30 in CARLihaas (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)