Talk:1966 anti-Igbo pogrom

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

Unsubstantiated Claims[edit]

I have deleted these unsubstantiated claims about the "bloodiness" of the July '66 counter coup. please do not revert unless you can substantiate your claims with reliable citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaminalpha (talkcontribs) 21:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Alaminalpha, you have deleted factual material (including the only reference cited in the article) which did not fit into your point of view in this edit. After removing the reference you inserted non referenced material of your own that fails WP:NPOV. This is not an improvement to the encyclopedic content of the article. Please make sure you source your information and do not delete reliably sourced information without consensus. I have rewritten, expanded and substantiated the article based on WP:RS compliant sources. Ochiwar (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Ochiwar Thankyou for expanding the article, however i doubt if the claims of the Government of Biafra deserve to be cited as factual material on this or any other encyclopedia.

The claims nourished in the proclamation of Biafra are clearly lopsided :[[1]] Rehtoric and propaganda has its place. The nostalgic comments of someone who fondly remembers biafra?: [[2]] Well, we can all tell where that belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaminalpha (talkcontribs) 22:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your input to the article. The proclamation of Biafra is an international legal document sourced from the journal International Legal Materials and is a valid reference, as is the response of the Nigerian government Nigeria: Government Paper on the Nigerian Crisis (status of the Federation; Biafra) which you might want to use as a reference. I have not done so because it only confirms already sourced content. I have removed the maintenance tags you added to the article because adding "needs additional citations for verification" tags to an article that has inline citations after almost every single sentence is absurd. If you have doubts about the factual accuracy of the article please specify them here. If you feel the article is unbalanced or its neutrality is in doubt please specify here or improve the article with referenced content. Tags do not improve the article, but constructive editing does. Please remember to sign your comments. Ochiwar (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came here while cleaning up broken reference citations and see a need to comment on this. While governments are generally reliable, they do sometimes produce propaganda to further their own aims. In particular, it could be expected that a government declaring independence would emphasize the abuses, real or perceived, of the government they are breaking away from, which, in turn, will seek to downplay, minimize and whitewash any such abuses. This is going to be a touchy topic in any case, so I wanted to leave an outside observation. I know nothing of the events described in this article, so I take no position. Pathore (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely agree with that. This is exactly the reason why I have linked the response to that declaration from the opposing government above. Both are primary sources. But the facts referenced by the source in question are confirmed by several independent secondary sources cited in the text and also confirmed by the response from the opposing government linked to above and are not in dispute. I have deleted the primary source in question though, as the cited secondary sources are in a better position of neutrality. Ochiwar (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was another citation in the article to the same primary source. (That's why AnomieBOT edited the page.) If the source itself is questionable, you might want to check the other reference as well. Pathore (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Missed that one. Thanks. Ochiwar (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"The lack of Igbo humility has been identified as one of the factors that sparked the pogroms" Surely this should be the "perceived" lack of humility, as it could theoretically be proven that this was perceived but not that it existed. This sentence claims they were murdered because they were arrogant. It is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"1966 anti-Igbo pogroms" seems like a better title, as there was a wave of separate pogroms in various locations. --Paul Keller (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casualty count[edit]

To be more like other genocide/pogrom/ethnic cleansing articles, we should include a casualty count. Does anyone have a source? --Daviddwd (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]