Talk:Nigerian Civil War/Archive 1

[Untitled]
Actually, the BAF consisted of more Biafrans than the two initial who flew under the beginning phase, in which the Swedes were involved. The Swedes left Biafra after some time, but the BAF continued to function, although the media wasn't interested in that and subsequently didn't report that.


 * Soviet Ambassador in Nigeria claimed in his book about NCW, that one of Biafrian bombers (I don't know how much bombers were there in BAF, maybe that was the only one?) exploded in the sky over Lagos because of an airbomb malfunction - no one of crew members survived. 212.109.36.74 13:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In the 'Shadows' book, mostly on the airlift operations, this was put down to a home-made bomb that upset the centre of gravity as they attempted to push it out of the ?Dakota?, leading to a crash. Granted, with no survivors, everything is guesswork, but 'Shadows' describes it as having crashed, rather than exploded mid-air.

It would be nice to get a map of the different regions. Valkotukka 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[Biafran Air Force]
there were three different attempts to form an Air Force in Biafra. the first, under Wing Commander Ezielo initially included an American B-25 Mitchell bomber and three B-26 light bombers from French Air Force surplus; later two Harvard armed trainers. Then there was the attempt by Swedish Count Carl Gustaf von Rosen in May 1969 with the Mini-cons. The third attempt was by under German Fred Herz, based at Uga, as an alternative to Uli in November 1969 with four T-6 Harvards and two Meteors acquired through Portugal. Unfortunately I have not recorded my sources, but these will be from any reliable history of Biafra. Frederick Forsyth covered the war as a journalist but his Biafra Story is highly biased and unreliable. 09:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Comments
Would people realise that if they wish to have comments about contributions that this is the purpose of the talk page? Discussion about bias of contributions do not belong embedded in the main article. Bendel boy (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"With the conflict was the result of economic, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions among the various peoples of Nigeria. Like many other African nations, Nigeria was an artificial structure initiated by the British which had neglected to consider religious, linguistic, and ethnic differences." - this statement may be referenced but is in direct oposition to the Wiki page on the colonial leadership of Britian in Nigeria. While the statement is true that there where many parties, the British did not neglect this, as it was part of their ruling policy to have "sub-ruling" local leaders because they knew it would cause problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Nigeria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.103.198 (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Recognition?

 * "...only four countries recognized the new republic"

The article for Biafra says that five countries gave recognition: Gabon, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Tanzania, and Zambia. Which is correct? Molinari 20:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Have u made the correcion? Sunnyjoe035 (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Map needed
A map of Biafra would be a good addition to this article.

Here is a good one: http://www.biafra.com.es/images/Biafra_independent_state_map-en.png (Mendali (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Aftermath - Currency
The article mentions "offering only N£20 to easterners on exchange of their Biafran currency". What is meant by this? Is it 1 Naira per £20 (I'd use a Naira symbol but few fonts contain it). I found some information at Biafraland about the currency but nothing about exchange rates, only a limit of exchanging £30 per person and £500 for businesses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orourkek (talk • contribs) 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

£ usually means British pound, or Italian lira. N£ is used to indicate Nigerian pound. At the time the exchange rate was fixed as 1 N£ = 1 £. In ?1972? Nigerian replaced the pound with the Naira, set at 2 Naira to the pound. What you are referring to was a similar exchange, during the war, for those areas of Eastern Nigeria recaptured by the Nigerian army. But after the war there was this general offer, although sadly limited. In 1970 a high salary was N£1,000, so assuming that a more typical salary would be half that then N£20 was about two weeks of 'average' pay, and maybe 1 - 2 months at the 'servant' level. Remember, these figures are (educated) guesses, so I don't have access to the needed statistics - the statistics that I have post-date the Naira & periods of high inflation. The only value I have is that a senior lecturer was paid c. N£1,000 per year, and that a bottle of coke/pepsi was 10 d.


 * In 1969-1970, N£1.00 = US$2.80, while £1.00 = US$2.40. Citation: sorry, I have none but my childhood memories.  Woodlore (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Economist quotes that in 2007 70% of Nigerians exist on less than $1 a day. Working with crude approximations, call it $400/year. N£20 would buy 480 bottles of coke, while $400 will buy c. 400 bottles of coke - so the N£20 works out crudely as the 70%-ile income level of Nigerians today. Maybe not so bad for the 1970s government, then, and a damning level of achievement for the Nigerian economy over nearly 40 years.Bendel boy 10:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ibo or Igbo?
Whatever it is, shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article??? Woodlore (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it should Sunnyjoe035 (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JTUAguiyiIronsi.JPG
The image Image:JTUAguiyiIronsi.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with dates
On the section where the list of cities captured is noted, it states that Enugu and Calabar fell in October, and Port Harcourt in June, which is true. However, Enugu and Calabar fell in 1967, while Port Harcourt and the Delta cities fell in 1968. Kopitarian (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Distances
The article describes Ore as being past Benin City, "just over the state boundary". According to a measurement done on Google Earth, Ore is approximately 138 miles from Onitsha, a city on the western Biafran border. By no means is 138 miles "just over the state boundary". In fact, it's more than halfway to Lagos, which is only 108 miles from Ore, not 130 as the article claims. I will make these corrections to the article after this addition has had a chance to be discussed. (Mendali (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

My reading is that it is just over the state boundary of the Mid-Western State, i.e. just inside Western State. You took it as eastern State. Your measurements reinforce the article. Bendel boy (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The claim of 130 miles is probably (I don't know!) made in the era of using paper maps and taking off the distance - issues of measurement, conversion, and flat maps to represent a curved surface. By all means change that. Bendel boy (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pogroms
'30,000 Ibos killed out of 1.3 million.' 1.3 million what? Ibos in the North? Ibos in the area were the killings took place? Since there were subsequently claimed to be 1.8 million refugees, a simplistic reading is that the 'statistics' are untrustworthy, created for shock value. Bendel boy (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

'Pogroms' has been updated, to change the number of Ibos from 1.3 million to 13 million. 13 million sounds more like the number of Ibos in Nigeria, and does not appear to be of relevance to the area where the killings took place. Where are these figures coming from? If from Frederick Forsyth, where do his figures come from?

Fall of Port-Harcourt
Different dates were given for the fall of Port-Harcourt in much the same paragraph. Which would it be? SR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.189.13.175 (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents
Why has the belligerent list been expanded to include the UK, USSR, Egypt & the Republic of Benin?

The UK & USSR supplied arms - should we include Sweden & France? Egypt *officially* provided volunteers/mercenaries - should we include RSA and whatever countries provided mercenaries?

The Republic of Benin was a created state, but never really took part in any meaningful sense. Bendel boy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

Counter-coup
'By whom?'

I'll need to locate definitive resources. But 'whom' was pretty much every book & article I have read on the subject - so I need to check that (a) my recollection is correct (b) get the relevant titles, authors, page numbers, etc.

The sadness, to me, is that 'whom' assumed that because it was mainly Igbos involved in the coup, aimed at a civilian sector, that it was an Igbo affair - when it was also Igbos who stopped it, and that the 'ethic' aspect was probably a side-effect of the nature of the composition of the armed forces and political power within Nigeria. Had the newspapers regarded it as 'idealists' versus 'power opportunists' rather than 'Igbo' versus 'Northerners' how different things might have been.

Islamic virtues?
"This highly centralized and authoritarian political system elevated to positions of leadership persons willing to be subservient and loyal to superiors, the same virtues required by Islam for eternal salvation."

I suspect the second part of the sentence isn't really accurate. Loyalty and subservience to God, yes, but to men? I don't think it's true, or then only on certain grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Literacy and development
"In this division, the North, at the time of independence in 1960, was by far the most underdeveloped area in Nigeria, with a literacy rate of 2% as compared to 19.2% in the East (literacy in Arabic script, learned in connection with religious education, was higher)" Literacy is arguably not a good indicator of development, and the parenthetical statement further blurs the point. The coastal regions were more developed, regardless of any literacy indicator. If there is a reference for stating that the North was the least developed at the time of independance, I would just point to the reference and strip the literacy part all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrlsouza (talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Three changes Reverted
Hallo everyone,
 * the following is an invitation to discuss the recent reverts applied by Pinkville (talk) yesterday:
 *  deletion  of the Category: Cold War  ,
 *  deletion  of the hyperlink to severe hunger and
 *  deletion  of the added link to Niger uranium forgeries in the == See also section ==
 * Thanks for your attention.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I deleted the Cold War category because it is not particularly related to the Nigerian Civil War. I deleted the wikilink to starvation because it didn't seem necessary (any reader should understand the meaning of "severe hunger"). I deleted the wikiling to Niger uranium forgeries because it has literally nothing to do with the Nigerian Civil War (for one thing, Niger is a different country). Hope that's all clear. Pinkville (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there Pinkville (talk). Thanks very much for answering. What about adding Uranium in Africa in the "See also section" then? Cheers. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't, because there's no relevance to this article, the Nigerian Civil War. List of civil wars is linked in the See Also because it's a relevant list that couldn't otherwise be included in the Nigerian Civil War article. Pinkville (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer a link to the "Resource curse" article in the == See also == section then? Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Aid to Biafra
Were there evidence from Biafran military people, during the war, that they continued the war because knew that starving people would be fed, then the assertion that aid continued the war would be valid. As it stands, it relies, for validity, on itself, as there are only statements from a Biafran politician who can have been convinced by anti-aid propaganda, or be propagating such, himself, after the war, as Smillie himself points out.
 * "Writing after the war, NU Akpan, head of Biafra's civil service said, 'The efforts of the relief agencies did in fact help prolong the war'." -The alms bazaar:altruism under fire : non-profit organizations and international development, Ian Smillie
 * Anarchangel (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The logic of aid=war is obviously ridiculous on its face, but it is also disproven here by facts, while it relies on assertions. The Biafran military carried on the war while people were starving. Withholding aid would have made no difference at all. Wikipedia should not be parroting the speculations of right-wing think tanks. Anarchangel (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * But one of the allegations - I can't remember the source, but given the context Akpan seems likely - was that food aid was diverted to the use of the military. A different allegation (See 'Shadows') is that the aircraft providing military aid flew in making use of the food aid aircraft to provide cover, and further allegations (same book) that some of the load carried by the relief aircraft was military aid. NOTE: There are no claims that the relief agencies knowingly flew in military aid; only that some of the cargo was not available for inspection by the flight crew. Bendel boy (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Food aid was an issue because the Nigerians saw that if food was delivered, firstly, there was no way to ensure that it did not go to feed Biafran soldiers, and secondly even if the food did not get through to the military, it meant that the Biafran government was freed from the responsibility of feeding its own people, and could thus concentrate its resources on feeding soldiers. It was not so much that aid agencies were flying in weapons and ammunition, but arms flights took advantage of the aid flights to fly in after them. There is also an interview online with a former pilot who flew aid for Biafra who makes it clear that there was collusion with the mercenary pilots who flew for Nigerian (South African, Rhodesian and British). The mercenaries knew that if they closed down the airports at Uli and Uga then the war would be over and they would be out of a job. So while they flew for Nigeria and made attacks on Biafra, they failed completely to attack the two airstrips that keep Biafra alive for the last year and a half of the war. The war ended after the Nigerian Army (ground forces) captured Uli and Uga airstrips.

Re foreign support, this came from regimes that had an interest in seeing the largest country in Black Africa divided by war. South Africa and Portugal were active. Aid also came from the Vatican through Caritas. Fernando Poo (Bioko Island) in Spain's Equatorial Guinea was used as a staging post until independence in 1968. French President De Gaulle also say the advantage in helping a division in an English-speaking Commonwealth West African country. De Gaulle was able to use his own powers as President, using the Presidential Secret Service to deliver aid without having going through the Ministry of Defence or Foreign Affairs. Some of the mercenaries who fought for Biafra were French, such as Jacques Foccart (General de Gaulle's secret service chief and special adviser on African affairs) and Roger Faulques (a battle scared veteran of WWII, Indo-China, Algeria, Katanga and the Yemen) while Rolf Steiner was a German who had served in the French Foreign Legion. source Suzanne Cronje, The World and Nigeria, London 1972). 10:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

more info on foreign support
I think we really need some info on how/why outside nations, particularly South Africa and Israel, were involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.205.64 (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Their 'involvement' was mainly in the form of providing material. Aside from the mercenaries, and the 'volunteer' Egyptian air force pilots, there was no direct involvement. Why was South Africa involved in fomenting anything that would eaken Black African nations? I think that the answer is obvious. For other nations, it was the hope that they would aid the victoriuous side and would have access, on preferential terms, somehow, to the oil reserbes of Eastern Nigeria. It is worth remembering that the oil reserves were not in the Ibo heartland, as Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni have reminded people. Bendel boy (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Benin in infobox
It seems misleading to include Benin in the infobox as a belligerent. First of all, most people (I'm assuming, like myself) would assume that meant the Republic of Benin to the west. I clicked to find out, first of all, it wasn't named that back then, but also that it refers to a country that existed for the better part of a day. It was not a country, in any sense of the word. One man proclaimed it, no one cared it existed, and it ceased to exist hours later. Why does this get any mention at all in the infobox?

I'm not saying it doesn't warrant mention in the article, far from it, it existing is important. But it seems excessive to label it as a "belligerent" in the infobox. --Golbez (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be included as I had included, that's it, as part of Biafra (only during some time in 1967). What is not logic is to not include the Re. of Benin but put a Rep. of Benin flag next to Albert Okonkwo at the infobox. Or Rep. of Benin had to be included or the flag next to Albert Okonkwo had to be changed to a Biafra one. Also, Im gonna add "citation needed" to all the supposedly supporter countries with no sources. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But it really did not exist in any significant way. A random guy wandering in from Cameroon and shooting someone would have had more impact on the war than the Republic of Benin did (and would have survived longer). If it had any impact it was as part of Biafra, not as an independent country, which is never functionally was, either from Biafra or Nigeria. It's an historical footnote, not something that needs equal footing in the infobox. --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had done the changes, hope you agree...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation request
A citation request for foreign supporters of the secessionists was made in April. The citation request specifically referred to Portugal, South Africa, Israel and Rhodesia. Four months have elapsed since the request was made and no citation has been forthcoming.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to "Biafran War"?
While both "Nigerian Civil War" and "Biafran War" are correct names, I believe the latter is more suitable for a number of reasons. First of all, this was a separatist war, not a war over who should rule Nigeria; the latter name reflects this better than the former. (I know the same can be said about the American Civil War, but I still think the point holds some merit) Secondly, "Nigerian Civil War" can also be interpreted as referring to the Boko Haram insurgency, while "Biafran War" is to the point and concise. Thoughts, anyone? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Both names are used, and I have to agree that "Biafran War" seems more fitting. One should not forget that Biafra was not just a unrecognized regime, but was actually recognized as indepedent state by several notable countries (some even call the conflict "Nigerian-Biafran War", as if both were full states fighting each other). "Nigerian Civil War" seems to favor the Nigerian POV, while "Biafran War" does neither support nor deny Biafra statehood. Applodion (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved it. Thanks for your input! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have requested this article to be moved back. I had intention of commenting here since your post, but wasn't able to do so until now when you've already moved the article. Nigerian Civil War is the most common name used in majority of the war literature and constitutes 80% of the references used in the article. I would post detailed reason if you still want it to be moved, but then you should use proper move request so that other people can have time to comment. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I reckoned someone would speak up and revert if there were any objections, though I probably should have thought twice since the move affects templates and links as well. I guess I need to familiarize myself with the proper procedure in such cases. Either way - do post your detailed reason, and let's have a discussion. I'm not strongly opinionated on this issue, but for the reasons I explained above, I do think "Biafran War" is the ideal name for this article. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For my two cents, Biafran War is the title I am much more familiar with. Hearing that name I would immediately know what was being referred to, whereas Nigerian Civil War would not be as immediately clear. AmplifyWiki (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   19:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nigerian Civil War → Biafran War – I apologize for moving the article without proper procedure yesterday. Let's try again: Since I've already explained why I believe "Biafran War" is a more suitable name, I'll just copy-paste my own discussion post.

While both "Nigerian Civil War" and "Biafran War" are correct names, I believe the latter is more suitable for a number of reasons. First of all, this was a separatist war, not a war over who should rule Nigeria; the latter name reflects this better than the former. (I know the same can be said about the American Civil War, but I still think the point holds some merit) Secondly, "Nigerian Civil War" can also be interpreted as referring to the Boko Haram insurgency, while "Biafran War" is to the point and concise. Thoughts, anyone? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would stay with the Nigerian Civil War, because it was between two parts of the same country, even if the aim was that one part should secede rather than overthrow the government of the entire country. When Biafra declared independence it was with the expectation that Lagos/Western State would follow, and then proceeded to attempt to put a puppet government in control of the mid-West. There was certainly an attempt to change the character of the entire Nigerian government, in a wider context than simply one part of the country breaking away.


 * If you look at the definition of a civil war in Wikipedia you will find that that definition includes a region attempting to break away.


 * I have not come across Boko Haram being described as a civil war, and a quick search just now finds Boko Haram *contrasted* with the civil war - so not only is there no confusion, but there is no evidence that anyone wants to consider Boko Haram as a civil war.


 * In the 1970s, growing up in Nigeria, there was a tendency to call it the Biafran Civil War (or just the Civil War), but not the Biafran War. That usage seems to have completely died out - I can find no reference to it from a web search. You are proposing that a minority use takes precedence over a majority use, seemingly on the grounds that the Wikipedia definition of a civil war is not acceptable for this particular case. The usage is akin to an older usage that has lost out to alternatives over time.


 * The Nigerian Civil War makes clear that there was a war between different factions in one country. The Biafran War would be more in line with the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Afghan Wars, the Irag War - fought over, rather than fought in, even if local state actors were involved, as there was a major contribution from non-local state actors. Bendel boy (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A discussion on which name is more common will hardly land at something conclusive - the list of corresponding articles in other languages bears witness of this, with wikipedias in other languages going for both names. I think this discussion should focus on which name best describes this conflict


 * My main argument here is that this civil war/war of independence was - apart from the ill-fated Biafran raid westwards - a war contained to territory claimed by Biafra. No doubt the national character of Nigeria would have changed dramatically had Biafra won the war, but that is just a natural consequence of a war of independence - for example (and this is just an example, and not really an argument inviting counter-examples, of which there are countless), in the Eritrean War of Independence, the independence movements allied with Ethiopian rebels and helped topple the communist regime there. I acknowledge that comparisons to other conflicts should be taken with some salt added, and there are plenty of examples going both ways, but my point is this: This civil war was (mostly) geographically isolated to a relatively small part of a large country, and "Biafran War" reflects this much better than "Nigerian Civil War". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The war was mostly contained to Biafran territory, but this territory was also Nigerian. There was a short-lived attempt to take the war to the rest of Nigeria - or, at least, the Midwest, West and Lagos - but this rapidly petered out and only just encroached on the West. There was primitive bombing by Biafra of non-Biafran territory. Biafrans fought on the Nigerian side. Nigerians fought on the Biafran side. That seems more like a civil war, and more so as at the outset they were all of the same nationality.


 * Had Biafra succeeded in its secession the name would, I grant you, probably have become the Biafran War of Independence. However, it didn't, and the contested territory remained in Nigeria.


 * Support. Appears to be the commonest name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Using a web search: Biafran War: c. 196,000. Nigerian civil war: c. 323,000. Nigeria-Biafra War: c. 49,000. 'Biafran War' is the most common only if you ignore the most common alternative.Bendel boy (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I was for moving the article, but was there really a consensus in place here? I forgot about this discussion and didn't even respond to User:Bendel boy's last post. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems very little interest at the moment either way. With only four of us providing any comments we may be waiting some time before a consensus could be established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendel boy (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This gives some idea of page views.

Page views for the last 12 months

You would hope for a bit more feedback! Bendel boy (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * (Start of joke) "The marked increase in hits is a clear indication that the new name is better!" (End of joke) I know how annoying it is when a dispute does not get the attention it deserves. As I said to another user, I am not that opinionated on this issue, and I would have liked to see more comments and input. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2019

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 previous move is reverted. Although the previous discussion was properly closed, overwhelming support is not required to restore a longstanding title changed through a low-participation process. If there is still concern regarding which is the best title several months from now, proponents can marshal their evidence, and a new process can then be initiated, with notification to all previous participants, and to appropriate projects. bd2412 T 23:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Biafran War → Nigerian Civil War – Can this page be moved back to Nigeria Civil War till there's a conensus for move. No page contributor was aware of this move and it received only 1 support. Sensitive articles like this should be well publicized via their WIKIPROJECT. I have no objection if a consensus is reached for the page to be moved, but right now the discussion on the talkpage does not represent consensus with a couple of editors opposing. Should be moved back to the previous page and a proper well publicized RM started. Mahveotm (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Cúchullain t/ c 13:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)  --Relisting.   SITH   (talk)   13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not the proper way since the discussion took place and was closed legitimately. Lack of participants isn't a valid reason to reverse the outcome of the original discussion. You should start a new move discussion to adhere to the RM procedure. -- Flooded w/ them 100s  14:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks as if this has been taken as a new discussion for a move request, looking at the infobox. If not, would someone knowing the correct etiquette please start the procedure? Bendel boy (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I would support the revert. Uses of Nigerian civil war within this article: 4.5 times more than Biafran War.

Use of Nigerian civil war within the general literature: greater than uses of Biafran War.

Comparison using Google books/sources, as suggested by Wiki guidelines for move requests: Nigerian Civil War more popular than Biafran War.

The Wikipedia definition of a civil war would make the Nigerian civil war a civil war - so we have consistency within the article and within Wikipedia.

The war did have measures of a civil war, albeit at a low level: split families / loyalty. Unlike a straight secession there was a (half hearted) attempt to change the nature of the whole Nigerian republic. Bendel boy (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. "Nigerian Civil War" is several times more common in Google Books sources than "Biafran War". Ditto Google News ( vs., where "Biafran War" also turns up hits that are actually for "Nigerian-Biafran War".)--Cúchullain t/ c 13:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisting note: as the closer of the previous RM, I will abstain from determining consensus on this discussion, despite the ability for consensus to change. Pinging  as the nominator of the previous RM for their input.    SITH   (talk)   13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do think "Biafran War" is a more suitable name, I agree that there was no consensus behind the move (I actually brought this up before anyone else did). If it is moved back, I won't complain. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per the previous discussion we had less than a month ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I initially posted this as a joke, but is there a possibility that the massive increase in page views owes to the new name? If so, that could be an indication that "Biafran War" is a better name. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The redirect from Biafran war to Nigerian civil war was set up at least by 2004 (Wayback machine). So it is not clear why a page move would result in a change in the number of hits, at least not by humans. It *may* indicate a change in bots accessing the page if it has moved from one redirect line to a long page - but why a bot would do this is at best unclear. Bendel boy (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The huge increase is because of how the page views are counted. The huge increase began on 16th January, the day after the move. The new redirect page, Nigerian Civil War, had a huge number of hits up until the 15th of January. Under the old name the average number of hits per day, from 2015 - 2019, was 1,260. Under the new name, the average is 1,220. So there has been no change in popularity between the old and new names; all that you are seeing is that the redirect has resulted in a step increase in the Biafran war page being displayed, and prior to that there was the same level of interest when the page displayed was the Nigerian civil war.
 * So around 1,200 page access occur a day - and yet few people access the talk page / comment on the name change.
 * However, the data from various web search sources indicate that the more common name is the Nigerian Civil War. Bendel boy (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Stats can be seen here. |Nigerian_Civil_War Bendel boy (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you got me - you're probably right it's not an indicator of anything. In any case, determining which is the most common name may not be as simple as comparing google search results. Remember, those results include thousands of irrelevant hits, such as forum posts, mirror sites, etc. I think we are best off establishing that both names are common (heaps of sources use both), and taking it from there - which name is the most descriptive about the nature of this war, etc. The secessionist nature of the war far outweighs the marginal efforts by the Biafran side to inflict changes on Nigeria itself. Furthermore, "Biafran War" establishes that this was (for the most part) a geographically isolated conflict, with most of Nigeria remaining peaceful throughout its duration. (In any case, I think I said most of what I have to say in the previous discussion. This is ultimately determined by the community as a whole. If there is strong support for moving the article and if no one who shares my views joins the discussion, I shall stand down as gracefully as I can :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The article itself uses Nigerian Civil War more often than Biafran War. Google Books, which is less affected by duplication of sources, uses Nigerian Civil War more than Biafran War (as does a search on Amazon). So while popularity is not the decider, it does play a part (and this is acknowledged by the Wiki rules on name changes).
 * As you wrote, the failed secessionist attempt of the Confederate States has left that war with the name of the American Civil War, which becomes a historical reference for naming where the secession failed. The Sri Lankan Civil War is another example of an attempt to create a breakaway state, and has not been named the Tamil War. There are not many examples, but they are there, and the precedent does seem to be when the break away fails that the name of the unified (if that is the right phrase after a civil war) country is used to describe the civil war.
 * I agree that the outcome does not look as if it will bother many people, given the redirects will take people to the information. French & German wiki use Biafran War. Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, use Nigerian Civil War. So 'other language' wikis are about equally split. Stats on usage as advised by Wikipedia to be used to provide a direction for a move, Wikipedia definitions of a civil war, and comparisons with other civil wars with similar desired and actual outcomes does provide support for this. On balance my preference is for Nigerian Civil War. Bendel boy (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although this is a borderline case, "Nigerian Civil War" leaves people with only limited knowledge of the history of Nigeria wondering if Nigeria has had more than one internal conflict, and if this might even refer to the present conflict with Boko Haram. "Biafran War" is clear and unambiguous. PatGallacher (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would the use of Nigerian Civil War suggest to people that Nigeria has had one internal conflict only, or more than one? (How does that contrast with the numerical implications of internal conflict by use of the English Civil War?) There was the ongoing Tiv rebellion from pre-independence to ?mid-1960s? (not classed as a civil war), there is Boko Haram (and which Nigerians do not regard as a civil war, at least at the moment, but as a war against terrorism), there is the herder/farmer conflict which has religious overlays, and then there is the 'Conflict in the Niger Delta' - this last may be confused by those with only limited knowledge of the history of Nigeria as the Biafran War. Bendel boy (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. Mahveotm (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RM. Dekimasu よ! 06:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per . The current title is clearer as to what it is referring to, satisfying WP:RECOGNIZE. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bendel boy is supporting the move back to the original title. It's not exactly clear what you are basing your opposition on.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support This should be the Nigerian Civil War. Col. Ojukwu moved for the secession of the then Eastern Region. This is similar to how the south of the US moved to secede leading to the American Civil War. In America today, the war is named the civil war and not the Confederacy War Kunkuru (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The headlines in the Australian and World press all spoke of "Biafra" at the time, Nigeria was only mentioned in the article text, eg Canberra Times 13 March 1969. It's a far more recognisable term. Andrewa (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree. The Nigerian Civil War is more representative of the war. Also google brings up far more hits for "Nigerian Civil War", as against "Biafran War" (44 million vs 900,000). Such a wide margin! Furthermore, most of the top results for "Biafran war" still contain "Nigerian Civil War" as their titles, with the "Biafran" word just appearing as a mention within the articles. Obviously "Nigerian Civil War" is the WP:COMMONNAME...and it is far more recognizable to potential readers.


 * PS: I don't believe that any reasonable person would confuse Boko Haram insurgency, which is a terrorist attack happening in tiny communities within a small region, with the Nigerian Civil War, which was a widespread civil conflict over the sovereignty of the country.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support revert to Nigerian Civil War per WP:COMMONNAME, NY Times, The Guardian, and counts from in original RM. I'm not seeing WP:CONSENSUS in that original RM either. No basis for the claim that "Biafran War" "Appears to be the commonest"; indeed the only data there contradicts that claim. As far as recognizability goes, anyone familiar with the topic, which is the relevant standard here, will surely recognize the topic from this title. --В²C ☎ 23:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I objected when it was moved in the first place and planned to explain my point in the earlier RM but was not able to do so, and just found it was closed and moved. Now let me just add this, given that enough has been said already above me. Per WP:COMMONNAME policy, articles are titled with the name that is most commonly used in majority of reliable sources. "Nigerian Civil War" is surely the most common name and I don't see the argument of how "Biafra War" is. For example, "Nigeria Civil War" is used by Britannica, UNICEF, BBC and mainstream Nigerian papers: Punch, Vanguard. In addition to numerous academic books:, , and  just to name a few. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Overturn poorly attended recent RM to previous stable title per 3x the sources in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm abstaining from closing this RM as I closed the last one, however I'm just noting that while I agree the input was sub-optimal, the closure was in line with closing guidelines and ironically, if you'd have taken it up with me on my talk page per move review process, I'd probably have given it a relist.   SITH   (talk)   22:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

DR Congo's role in the Nigerian Civil War
I read somewhere that Mobutu sent troops to aid the federal government during the Nigerian Civil War. Can anyone verify this? I don't remember which book I read it in, but I'll keep looking. Many of my books don't have indexes, and Google is no help. Josh (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Vatican support
Removed the support flag of the Vatican from the infobox because cited source inadequately described Vatican support and gave no sourcing of claim. Previous posts on this page suggest there is credible secondary sources detailing Caritas support for the Biafran cause. If something containing that information can be given—while also clearly demonstrating that it was at the direction of the Vatican (or pontiff, to have a broad view on the matter)—then it would be good to reintroduce it. In earnestness, part of me is concerned the inclusion of the Vatican in the support box is partially due to an internet meme referring to the war as a “crossover” event. If you want to know what I mean, reference google. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Readded it. added 2 new sources to support the claim, one of them is the New York times in a news paper from the time, which alleged the Vatican to train pro-separatist troops and sending financial support. Here's the article. I think this should be enough to at least add that the support was alleged. --JonahF (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020
Suggestion: add link on name of author cited at end of article: Michel Arseneault https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Arseneault JosephQuesnel (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have an article on the English Wikipedia yet, being sent to the French article is too surprising to a reader. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Mercenaries
Why are country leaders being added to the list of mercenaries? Bendel boy (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If no one objects by the the end of November I will remove these country leaders. Bendel boy (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. I assume the specific names you want to remove from the list of mercenaries are:
 * Antonio Salazar, Prime Minister of Portugal during the first year of the Nigerian Civil War.
 * Marcello Caetano, Prime Minister of Portugal during the last two years of the war.
 * Americo Tomas, President of Portugal during the war.
 * Francisco Franco, dictator of Spain during the war
 * Luis Carrero Blanco, deputy to Franco during the war.
 * Charles de Gaulle, President of France during the first two years of the war.
 * Georges Pompidou, President of France during the last year of the war.
 * Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Restore the part about the unlikely supporters of each side
I mean france fighting against the will of the US is simply wacky same with the USSR and the US agreeing with each other 125.165.106.229 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

How?
I still can't figure out how the ussr helped the USA against Britain. how????? 185.43.172.238 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Decolonisation of Africa?!?!
How is the 1967–1970 Nigerian Civil War part of the decolonisation of Africa? This isn't a colonial war because Nigeria has been independent from the UK since 1960. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Best I can offer is that the war was caused in part by political imbalances that were deliberately created by Britain as part of the transition to local rule.
 * But at heart I would not regard it as a war of decolonisation, as I would see that as a liberation struggle from an external ruling system. Bendel boy (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

PLO as a supporting country
Should this recent addition be deleted?

@Desta231206 Why include a non-state organisation? @Dieter.Meinertzhagen what would be your opinion? Bendel boy (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Bendel boy, @Desta231206
 * 1. I can't answer by quoting policy. The Template:Infobox military conflict doesn't include the "Supported by =" parameter, although "Supported by =" routinely appears in the infobox for civil war articles. When the list of supporters appears in civil war articles, it appears in the Belligerents section, and the template documentation for belligerents (i.e. the combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 parameter) says specifically that parties larger or smaller than states can be combatants (indeed, non-state belligerents are common in civil war articles e.g. Lebanese Civil War). However, te only civil war article in which I can find non-state actors listed as supporters is (Nationalist) Foreign volunteers and (Republican) Foreign volunteers in Spanish Civil War.
 * The policy I do get explicitly from the infobox documentation is:
 * For the infobox in general: "It should not 'make claims' or present material not covered by the article." and "Information in the infobox should not be 'controversial'".
 * For combatants: "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article."
 * 2. We really need more information cited from a reliable source about the PLO's involvement before we can count it as major enough to include it as a supporter. I think that ordinary readers believe the PLO during 1967-1970 was focused on establishing a Palestinian state on ground held by Israel, and would immediately question why or how the PLO would involve itself in the Nigerian Civil War. We need to answer that question, either in the article body (as with supporters South Africa, Britain, France, etc.) or by citing a reliable source in the infobox (as with supporters Vatican City, Czechoslovakia, etc.). I realize that some supporters are claimed in the infox without any evidence (e.g. Syria, Cameroon) but I think that is a problem with the article that we should not make bigger. Until we can document the PLO's support for Nigeria I think we should exclude it from the infobox list of supporters.
 * 3. A similar conversation was carried out earlier in this talk page in the section Talk:Nigerian Civil War: Vatican City was added as a supporter of Biafra, removed because of inadequate sourcing, and then re-added with improved sourcing. I suggest we remove the PLO as a supporter now and re-add it later when we can document its support with reliable sources.
 * 4. Some other civil war articles with the military conflict infobox which may be useful for comparison are Nicaraguan Civil War (1926–1927), Salvadoran Civil War, Guatemalan Civil War, First Sudanese Civil War, Second Sudanese Civil War, English Civil War, American Civil War, and Cambodian Civil War. Some of these do not list supporters at all, all that list supporters except the aforementioned Spanish Civil War list only supporters that are states, and some usefully qualify the listing with the kind of support provided (e.g. "Logistics", "Non-combat aid" or "Diplomatic support").
 * Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Supported by" in the infobox
The countries listed in the "Supported by" sections of the infobox need adequate context and sourcing in the article body. At present, most countries in those lists fail MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE; adding citations for something in the infobox is not enough to warrant its inclusion. For example, if a reader wanted to know how the Vatican City supported Biafra or why it is "alleged", they would be unable to find out that information from the article and would have to scan the sources given themselves. For this reason, after a week I am removing most entries in the "Supported by" lists unless this issue is remedied (i.e. Unless context, even a short one sentence explanation, is provided for each country). If I have time, I will attempt to remedy some of the entries in the lists myself, but I cannot do that for all of them since some of them have no sourcing, and the onus of this task should be on the editor(s) who added the countries in the first place. Yue 🌙 20:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)