Talk:Madagascar/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Madagascar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

First off, how is a matriarchal system "equal between men and women" yet a patriarchal system not?

Second, the Wikipedia page on Polynesian culture, linked to from this section, does not mention matriarchy.

Third, there are no citations at all in this section. Where is this information coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabouz1 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fourth, what is the time frame for when all that happened? Sorry forgot to sign the first time. Tamer (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided a link to the computer-animated film, Madagascar - The Kooky One 00:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the assertion that Madagascar has non-decimal currency is correct: "The Malagasy franc, divided into 100 centimes, is the currency unit (6,588 Malagasy francs equal U.S.$1; 2001 average)." Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The Malagasy franc has been replaced by ariary as the currency since 1 January 2005. One ariary can be divided into five iraimbilanja. Hawklord 14:38, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

I have always been bewildered by some encyclopedias saying that one Malagasy Franc is/was divided into centimes because I have NEVER seen first hand evidence of this. I assume this was true probably during the colonial period but was definitely no longer in practice by the 1980s. Through most of Malagasy independence Madagascar had a non-decimal currency. The Malagasy Franc (FMG) AND the Ariary were used as one currency where 1Ariary = 5FMG. Iraimbilanja is the Malagasy for FMG. As mentioned above, the FMG was eventually dropped and the Arairy is now officially used. Fanoman (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Where should the high background radiation facts go, and where should its negative impact on colonization attempts go? BACbKA 21:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This information should probably be under the "Geography" heading.24.83.178.11 12:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

I was reading an article on African law by a British scholar and I noticed that it continually referred to "Malagasy" rather than Madagascar. From looking at the handful of articles on Madagascar, it appears to me that the official name of the nation that is coterminus with the island is the "Malagasy Republic". If this is correct and current, and if Malagasy is the common term for the island in British english, then Malagasy should redirect here instead of to Malagasy language, and this article should plainly state all of this in the intro. Not knowing anything about this beyond what I just perused, I don't feel comfortable making the changes myself. Postdlf 00:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the old name used in the 1960's. Malagasy is the adjective for Madagascar. The name is now Republic of Madagascar, perhaps because people thought that Malagasy was the name of the country. Hawklord 14:01, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

People from Madagascar are called Malagasy. The malagasy spelling of Madagascar is Madagasikara.Another reference is just a confusion between terms--Gollum

What I meant above was that the name originally used was Malagasy Republic, but now it's Republic of Madagascar, so the adjective has been replaced by a noun. Hawklord 14:23, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Not really any different from England - we live in England, where we have English culture Tomandlu 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Malagasy Republic" was the name used in English at the UN for awhile, but Madagascar has been used for at least 20 years. I'm not sure when the change was made. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you're interested, Malagasy works as an adjective as well as the name of the people. You wouldn't say Madagascarian, except in British English. Along this line of thought, the French equivalent for Malagasy is Malgache. Now you ask, why do the Malagasy use the English term to describe themselves than the French term? After all, the French have had a solid colonial presence there. The British did attempt the colonial thing but it didn't stick. I haven't had a solid answer to this. I do remember getting the feeling that they respected the Americans more than the French; after all Bush acknowledged the legitimacy of their new president. And I think the Americans sent aid after a hurricane swept through the south. And the French were the colonialists.

The Malagasy don't use the English term - the English use the term used by the Malagasy. When the Malagasy language was first transcribed (by British missionaries) in the 1820s, they noted that sss and shh are not separate sounds in Malagasy. Rather, the S sound can be pronounced anywhere on a continuum between those two extremes interchangeably across dialects or even by the same speaker in many cases. So they used the S to transcribe the sound. The vowels in Malagasy are often dropped when speaking normally but articulated when speaking emphatically or slowly; the British indicated the vowel sound regardless of whether or not it was commonly dropped. The French, however, re-transcribed common Malagasy words (place names etc) according to the predominant pronunciation they heard, making it easier for fellow French-speakers to sound out the unfamiliar words when reading them, in a way that wouldn't require understanding of the complexities of Malagasy language and its varied pronunciation. Thus they transcribed words the way they most often heard them, with the ch (sh) for S and the omission of the silent vowels in casual speech. In other words, English-speakers use the Malagasy-language adjective (Malagasy) while the French use their interpretation of what colonists heard (malgache). In any case, the current English pronunciation of the term (mal-a-gas-y) is dissimilar to the way the word is pronounced most of the time in casual conversation Mal(a)gasss' with the central vowel elided, which is again different from the French pronunciation mal-gash'. Did that answer your question? -- Lemurbaby (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Some one needs to find out just when the name changed from Malagasy Republic to Madagascar. The article currently says when MG was officially started, but except for saying that it is a FORMER name, it doesn't tell us when it stopped being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.160 (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The island was given independence from France on June 26 1960 under the name Malagasy Republic (République Malgache). When the constitution was changed on December 30 1975 the name of the country was changed to the Democratic Republic of Madagascar. In 1992 another constitution was adopted and the name of the country became what it is now the Republic of Madagascar. Fanoman (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The written history of Madagascar began in the 7th century, when Arabs established trading posts along the northwest coast.

Can the contributors, moderators, and whoever else contribute more to the non-european history of Madagascar? I think we can do better than one measly "before the whites came" sentance. In fact, with Africa articles (and practically all non-European articles of history), we need to wean ourselves from orienting the histories based on a low interest in precolonial, white contact attitude.

———————————

There has been a very good history book recently published here in Madagascar by a Malagasy historian (I am not sure if I am allowed to write his name and its title) that can answer this question. Unfortunately most of the literature on the subject is in french. But if you want to know, the fisrt permanent settlements on the island date most likely from the 4th century CE if not earlier! Knowledge of the island possibly dates from long before. Madagscar stays one of humanitiy's "last frontiers" though.

Fanoendor 07:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Asian features in madagascar can ALSO mean indonesian, malaisian and, since the 20th century, chineese. Madagscar is the indan ocean's melting pot. Is there somewhere (an article) where this aspect can be discussed more?

Fanoendor 07:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding:

"During this period a strategy of nationalization of private enterprises, centralization of the economy and "Malgasization" of the education system crippled the economy, leaving traces even today of a highly centralized economic system and a high level of illiteracy"

Does this represent a bias against a centralised economy? Perhaps this should be explained, instead of just saying that because the government was socialist the country deteriorated. Was there corruption? Were there transport issues that interfered with policy enactment?

I think that statement is valid, but I agree with your concerns about expanding on it and explaining the situation behind it. As is, it does suggest a bias, but I would guess the intent was to explain why the economy and education system is in the relatively poor state it is in. Historically, there is weight to this point of view. I didn't write it myself, and I don't know enough about the topic to expand it though. For the time being, I think that the statement should remain in the article because I believe it is more useful there than not there at all, which may have not been what you were concerned about. Sifaka 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that there is a bias in attributing the deterioration of the country to the socialist regime. The whole world might not agree with this but I think socialism does not mean necessary failure...If this is true then we have to redifine the word "failure" to be more oriented to the capitist stand point. Moreover, "high level of illiteracy" means what for you without a given rate; a figure or data should be shown to support this affirmation. --Tendro 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What are the five largest cities in Madagascar. Many people ask this question every day. Why not answer it. PLEASE

Data from a census taken in July 01, 2001 lists the major cities by population. No doubt the numbers have changed as the birth rate is pretty high there, but probably the cities are still almost in the same order. The info is from this web page: http://www.citypopulation.de/Madagascar.html Sifaka 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Rank, City, province, population

1 Antananarivo ANT 1,403,449

2 Toamasina TOA 179,045

3 Antsirabe ANT 160,356

4 Fianarantsoa FIA 144,225

5 Mahajanga MAH 135,660

6 Toliara TOL 101,661

7 Antsiranana ASI 73,491

8 Antanifotsy ANT 59,000

9 Ambovombe TOL 57,000

10 Amparafaravola TOA 43,000

11 Taolagnaro TOL 39,000

12 Ambatondrazaka TOA 36,000

I wonder about the accuracy of these figures, the source does not reference its source. For Antananarivo, the figure is clearly the sum of 2001 estimates for the three districts Antananarivo-Renivohitra, Antananarivo-Atsimondrano and Antananarivo-Avaradrano, so sizeable rural populations may be included. For Toamasina, it's the district Toamasina I, Toamasina II has been left out, so it may be more accurate. Same with the following places.

As for the latter part of the list, I can't find any primary source. The figure for Antanifotsy seems suspiciously high, I remember it as an unimportant village, and the list of telephone subscribers is very short. Hawklord 22:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What are the sports in madagascar? I have no idea, could someone fill me in?

Yes there is a large stadium near the center of the capital city where soccer is played. That sport is very common in Madagascar.

I heard rugby was one of the most popular sports there, does anyone think there should be a section on sport in Madagascar?

Soccer (football) is the most common sport. Basketball has become more popular in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.152.77 (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Tennis is also very common. --41.204.111.27 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Africa at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Africa whose scope would include Madagascar. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the last sentence in the Economy section is a kind of non-sequitor. It also shows a bias indicitive that it was added by somebody who wanted to redirect to the accompanying link to Mine Your Own Business. I didn't delete or modify it but I was wondering if it strikes anybody else as odd sounding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WeekendKruzr (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Please see the discussion at Talk:Madagascan presidential election, 2006.--Pharos 11:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think this issue is settled, per this statement of the government of Madagascar. Please avoid the incorrect "Madagascan" in future; it takes a lot of trouble to fix.--Pharos 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a registered user and this page is protected. Someone should can the biased conclusion to the 'economics' section.

"Despite the democratically elected Mayor of Fort Dauphin supporting the ilmenite mining project, outside environmental groups led by World Wide Fund for Nature have stymied development, constraining the local population to the endemic poverty caused by 70% unemployment as documented in Mine Your Own Business."

The word choice is over the top. Also, according to the Mine Your Own Business wiki, the film was funded by a Canadian mining firm. There should be some secondary source for that statistic before it goes into the article

151.201.149.26 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1 April 2007

Agreed, and I think it's unreasonable for half of the economy section to be dominated by a debate that relates to .5% of the country's GDP. I've simplified the section with a simple reference to ilmenite mining, added an external reference to it, and left it at that. Warthog32 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

someone who knows the situation must edit. Is an important referendum for the future of the country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.55.199.9 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I read an article stating that English will become the third official language. Is this true?

Yes, article 4 of new Constitution "Le malagasy est la langue nationale. Le malagasy, le français et l’anglais sont les langues officielles." see http://www.assemblee-nationale.mg/Projet-Rev-Constitution.pdf

It's just too sad. The entire world is becoming americanised. Aaker 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion about official language should be closed, it's not that someone is not happy about having english as official language and commenting here that the history of the whole country has to be re-written —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.23.189 (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How many people actually speak English in Madagascar? The article is quite vague about it.AtikuX 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I do not believe that any substantial proportion of Malagasy people speak English, or at least no more than you would expect in any other non-Anglophone African country among the educated classes.--Pharos 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

English is an official language!!!

If English is an official language why isn't it in the infobox?

Because people keep deleting it. Hawklord 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion about official language should be closed, it's not that someone is not happy about having english as official language and commenting here that the history of the whole country has to be re-written.

Under "French Intervention" there is a link entitled "Diego Suarez" It is clearly a geographical reference when read in context. However activating the link goes to "Diego Suarez, the Garden Desinger", this would seem inappropriate and I propose the link should point to "Antsiranana", the modern day name of the port in question. Molby61 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Malagasy? Thanks! Chris 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it a bit strange to have this article in the category Category:East Africa and at the same time to include the navigational box {{Countries of Southern Africa}}. Which one is correct? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

....May be because Madagascar is located in south-east of africa,--Tendro 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the article contrdictory, if it isn't then please remove the tag, thanks! 71.112.234.62 02:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See the previous section. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• • This is about cat vs navigational box? Madagascar is in both East and Southern Africa. That's what South-East Africa means. There's nothing contrdictory in that or, as the misuse of the warning box suggests, the article's content. Please either fix what you think is wrong or remove the box. T L Miles 13:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What misuse? Cats and navigational boxes are part of the article's content as much as everything else. Please, cite the sources for your claims. According to the UN scheme of geographic regions Madagascar is part of Eastern Africa.[1] This is important not just because of this article but also because currently there is a template called {{Countries of East Africa}}, and it does not include Madagascar. Perhaps it should also be renamed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Removed {{Contradict}} and added both cats and nav boxes for Eastern and Southern Africa. There is no listing of Madagascar in the East Africa nav box, but I'm not the one who had the issue with this, so I'm not going to mess with the box. If you have further problems with Madagascar's listing in Nav boxes of the Regions of Africa, please go edit the nav boxes at their templates.

Please note: the articles Southern Africa and East Africa adress you concerns, stating that while the UN lists it as East Africa, some others list it in Southern Africa or both. Unfortunatly, having the "contradict" warning box over such a semantic issue made the article look seriously flawed at first blush, when in fact the problem was minor, a matter of interpretation, and is (I Hope) now fixed to your satisfaction. T L Miles 18:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have explained my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Regionalisation: Madagascar. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"During World War II, Malagasy troops fought in France, Morocco, and Syria." Fine, but on which side: Allies or Axis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.160 (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Since they were a French colony at the time then they fought WITH the French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.152.77 (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The French were on both sides. You can read about it.Eregli bob (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

... Many incorporate the cult of the dead with their other religious beliefs and bless their dead at church before proceeding with the traditional burial rites. They also may invite a pastor to attend a famadihana. The Roman Catholic church is open to its members continuing these practices, while more conservative Protestant denominations tend to condemn them to be superstitions or demon worship that should be abandoned. ...

The Catholic church would be unlikely to accept these practices if they are superstitious. Please provide a citation. Javaman59 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The religion section is reading a little rough-the section on Christianity is very straightforward and gives no indication of the dynamics of the church there (I was looking for information on the currently controversial charismatic church). On the other hand, the Islam section was obviously written by a different person, someone enthusiastic about Islam. It reads like a brochure for the Muslim community in Madagascar, and is longer than the section on indigenous beliefs, despite Islam being currently the religion followed by fewer people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matveiko (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The two paragraphs seem fairly appropriate, although I suppose it could be argued that the paragraph on Christianity is somewhat scanty. I don't know enough about such things to improve / expand that paragraph. Personally, I think the solution would be to improve and expand the paragraphs on Christianity and traditional faiths, and leave the paragraph on Islam as it is. michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Having just read the section on Religion, i do not find that the paragraph on Islam sounds like "a brochure for the Muslim community". Maybe it has been re-written since then. The paragraph on the traditional religion could be better though. Only the death rituals are well covered. And what is this relgion called? Does it resemble other religions anywhere on Earth? JoaCHIP (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The islamic one should be downsized in relation to previous paragpraphs , especially the en masse conversion story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.59.109 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph on islam clearly was written by an islam enthousiast. References 25 and 26 are also not appropriate and link to dubious web sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.168.12 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article because it is not generally believed by historians:

On October 1 1776, the natives of Madagascar elected Móric Beňovský (Matthew/Maurice/Móritz Benyowsky/Benovsky/Benyowszky) King / Emperor (Ampansacabé) of Madagascar on the Mahevelou plane. Among other things, Maurice introduced Latin script for the Malagasy language. (In the history of Madagascar, the King Andrianampoinimerina (1786–1810) is mentioned as the national unifier—in fact he built upon the efforts of the Ampansacabe Beňovský.)

It was added to the article on December 16, 2006 at 09:24 by IP Address 217.73.25.254. It is not in the History of Madagascar article. David Reiss 06:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the 1800s, it is said that members of the Mkodo tribe would sacrifice young women to man-eating trees, although some argue that these tales may be fabrications." Doesn't this seem like something of an understatement? Only some "argue" that tales of man-eating trees are fabrications? Maybe this should be rephrased to reflect that human Mkodo human sacrifice in general is argued by some to be fabrications (and accounts of man-eating trees are clearly fictitious)? Also, this has no references whatsoever. Thanks. michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Howdy. An anon IP added this section on Lemurs a few days ago which doesn't quite work on the main Madagascar page. I'm removing it, however if someone wants to find a good home for the little lemurs I though I would link to the diff here for the purposes of an easy copy/paste. Thanks. —Noah 05:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I looked into it further and it's a copyright violation. The source can be found on a WWF page. —Noah 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless we are willing to accept the ideal that all of Africa was part of India ... the geographical shape of the continent of Africa - and ignore the coastal outlines of Mozambique; can we truly say that Madagascar split from India instead of the African continent I think not. Because Islamic and Arabic traditions are intertwined with Madagascar ... does not necessarily mean that it split from the Asian Continent and the African continent has to be given more credit than that. I strongly encourage the geologist and historians to take another look at Madagascar and re-assess what really happened. With a total of 5% of animal and plant population being on the island shows that it was part of a much bigger geological plain and more so than the 'sub-continent' of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngudger (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

65 million years ago madagascar split from now what is called Africa. According to linguistic studies, the majority of Madagascar's population came from Austronesian immigrants who sailed there from across the pacific. Why isn't this mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.199.241 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by "most notable" in the lead. Is there a way to say it that isn't opinion-based? "Most notable are the lemur infraorder of primates, the carnivorous fossa, three endemic bird families and six endemic baobab species." Life.temp (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

the lemur is a four legged animal with a backbone, 2 heads and a long neck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.50.67 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please put this Category:English-speaking countries and territories--85.117.43.111 (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Split" from Africa? "Separated" from India? in the same sentence. I'm confused. Geologically? Politically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.48.107 (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Geologically. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is said about the 2009 coup and the military attacking the presidential palace. I know it's an ongoing crisis, but still it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.85.59 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be down at the bottom, not at the top. Please stick with the history format. Someone has already posted about the coup, and in doing so gave credibility to a self-imposed president. The old President actually resigned and delegated power to the Military. That means whomever is the most senior military member is now "acting President". 146.235.130.52 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is President Madagascar's response to this terrible pandemic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.245.137 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hope he'll shut down everything, but sadly, life is not a video game. 80.176.227.174 (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They drive on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.163.100 (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The article says "The main island, also called Madagascar, is the fourth-largest island in the world" but then says "At 587,000 square kilometres (227,000 sq mi), Madagascar is the world's 46th-largest country and the fourth largest island." It seems there is a nation Madagascar that includes not only the island Madagascar but other islands as well, but the other islands are not mentioned. Wakablogger2 (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

thats a lie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.59.7 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

the section on cuisine discusses music. It si totall unclear what the section on music is trying to discuss and the section on hainteny discusses wildlife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.221.71 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What was (is) the native name of the island? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"As part of East Gondwana, the territory of Madagascar split from Africa approximately 160 million years ago; the island of Madagascar was created when it separated from the Indian subcontinent 80 to 100 million years ago." So which was it? Africa or India? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It was originally stuck between africa and india, which were joined to each other with Madagascar in the middle. 160 million years ago, Madagascar and India ( still stuck together ), separated from Africa. 80 million years ago, India split from Madagascar and floated away to crash into Tibet. Clear now ?Eregli bob (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

How ironic. In the Education section the following statement is made --"a significant proportion of the adult population are illiterate." The word "proportion" is singular ("proportions" is plural) so the sentence should read "a significant proportion of the adult population is illiterate". I would have changed it but the page is padlocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.174.216 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you might get some argument from Brits it's fine as it is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Point 1. I could only get an argument from Brits who failed English at school, and who need remedial English tutoring. Point 2. It clearly and obviously is not fine as it is. It is ungrammatical. 'Proportion' is singular, so is followed by the word 'is'. 'Proportions' is plural, so is followed by 'are'. Point 3. The dumbing down of wikipedia is perpetuated by an article being locked to prevent editing. Why are you so determined to help with that dumbing down? 222.152.174.216 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.174.216 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you're describing a plural (the population), & since Brit usage commonly describes things like companies with plurals ("Jaguar are"), "need remedial English tutoring" doesn't enter into it. Nor does "determined to help with that dumbing down". You need to recognize your usage doesn't control. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC) (P.S. You might also remember to sign your comments.)

What absolute nonsense. This is from our Jaguar entry -- "Jaguar was (not were) founded .....Jaguar was (not were) listed on the London Stock Exchange...... until it was (not they were) acquired.......Jaguar also holds (not hold) Royal Warrants."It is apparent we have a dispute here. I believe the article can be improved by using proper English, and you argue for the status quo. Where do we go to have this dispute resolved? Also, for your information I did sign my comment like this 222.152.174.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

I wouldn't rely on WP articles as authority. Who wrote the page? A Brit, or somebody else? It's extremely common in native usage, in Britain. As for "settling it", leave this up. Sooner or later, somebody who really cares will fix it, or tell you Engvar applies & leave it alone, & you can stop getting so exercised about it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC) (P.S. You missed the date: sign ~~~~ for IP, time, & date. me like it!

In this section, without citation, it is listed

"Approximately 50% of the country's population practice traditional religion" "about 45% of the Malagasy are Christian" "Islam in Madagascar constitutes about 7% of the population" The use of non definite terms aside, it is impossible for 102% of the population to believe in anything This needs to be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean177 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is quite possible for an individual or commuinity to claim to be a Christian and follow local traditional voodoo beliefs at the same time. Irish and Norwegians do, so why not Africans and Malagache ?

In geography, there is a line "Along the crest of this ridge lie the central highlands, a plateau region ranging in altitude from 2,450 to 4,400 ft (747 to Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "," m) above sea level."

Here it should be, "Along the crest of this ridge lie the central highlands, a plateau region ranging in altitude from 2,450 to 4,400 ft (747 to 1,341 metres) above sea level."

---

udechand May 25,2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udechand (talk • contribs) 09:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, everybody.

While Wikipedia itself advocates the idea that Madagascar belongs to the African continent (c.f. Africa article), there are several other sources that tell that Madagascar is a mini-continent itself (c.f. Google "Madagascar continent"). Wikipedia should board this topic in this article (Madagascar) to clarify this point or, at least, to put the facts on the table. My personal opinion is that, by proximity, Madagascar belongs to Africa.

Best regards,

Luis R. Villegas H. Mexico. --LuisVillegas (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the google search, the only way in which Madagascar is not considered part of Africa, in ecology, is already mentioned in the article (search the article for "eighth continent"). Munci (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Munci.

There is a geological and paleontological theory that says that Madagascar was once part of India. Evidence shows that certain fossils are found in both, India and Madagascar, but not in Africa or the Middle East. Therefore, Madagascar could be considered a separate mini-continent. Obviously, I cannot prove this theory but I think it is worth mentioning in this article (Madagascar).

Best regards,

Luis R. Villegas H.

Mexico.

It is undoubteldly true that India was once connected to Madagascar AND Africa (i.e. before Gondwana split up). That is however not very relevant here.

For any theory to be worth mentioning in Wikipedia it has to be taken seriously in mainstraim reliable sources. If you can provide such sources it can be added, if not, we stay with the mainstream belief that it is part of the African (geological) continent. Wikipedia aims to present no original research and is therefore putting a high value on all content being verifiable in reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Arnoutf. How are you? ... I think the Lemuria (continent) article can help. See the Scientific origins section. Best regards, Luis. --LuisVillegas (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the housing like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.184.119 (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph begins "Most archaeologists believe Madagascar was first inhabited sometime 500-200 AD, by Austronesian peoples ...". The years are reversed. It should say "sometime between 200 and 500 AD by Austronesian peoples ...", as it says later in the article.

K.enevoldsen (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the introductory section states "Madagascar is home to as many as 12,000 of the world's plant species, of which more than 80% are endemic to Madagascar. They include the lemur infraorder of primates, the carnivorous fossa, three bird families and six baobab species." (boldface is mine)

I am reasonably certain that plant species do not usually include lemurs, fossa or birds. Can someone with better biological knowledge than me rework these two sentences so that they make sense?

--Shureg81 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the French Colonization section it mentions 8,000 to 90,000 people killed in 1947 and I think you meant 80,000. Thanks.

72.229.96.185 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Done - 8,000 was changed from 40,000 in this edit. It now reads "tens of thousands of people killed".   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: The exact figure seems to be disputed – see Malagasy Uprising. I just replaced the numbers with "tens of thousands" killed, with more detail given with the reference. I'd encourage revision from anyone knowledgable about the details. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we perhaps include the same information and sources from the lede of that article in the artilc text, rather than a reference tag? Should we try to attract more input by reactivating the edit semiprotected template?   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no preference on whether the detail goes in the body text or the ref. On reading Malagasy_Uprising#Casualties I now see where the 8,000 came from. The other complication is that although the title of the first reference seems to imply 89,000 dead, it's used at Malagasy Uprising as a source for "80,000-90,000" dead. I've left a message at User talk:Tobby72, Tobby72 being the author of the dif linked above, but the best place to get more input would probably be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I think {{edit semi-protected}} should be reserved for tasks any experienced contributor could complete, that don't require specialist knowledge (or the ability to read French). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks.   — Jeff G.  ツ 12:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

English was removed as official language in Madagascar since a new Constitution has been promulgated : http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AL2QX20101122

Text of the new Constitution : http://www.hat.gov.mg/constitution/fichiers/const_fr.pdf

Article 4 - (...) Le malagasy est la langue nationale. (...) Les langues officielles sont le malagasy et le français.

Antoine854 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to mention this under the languages section, but not remove English as an official language, since the referendum, this current government and its new constitution are not recognized by the international community. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a problem of international recogniction. The old Constitution is not valid any more in the country and it's the new one which is. That's why I think this new reality must be mentionned. Regarding the international community, it is very hipocritical since it recognizes Constitutions of countries which are dictatures, such as Iran or China. This one in Madagascar was chosen by the people.

Antoine854 (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a difference of political opinion and one of the things that makes editing wikipedia complicated. I'm not sure what kind of change would be in line with Wikipedia's policies here. That's what matters - not one editor's political opinions over another's. I've made an edit that attempts to portray the information accurately. Have a look and see what you think. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's OK. Thanks. Antoine854 (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just putting this out there, http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/madagascar/cache/offonce/pid/3356;jsessionid=F43FCB1DAB8C8486038EC8377263EC6C Madagascar's official page taken off the UN website. Besides I'm pretty sure legitimacy is completely irrelevant to official language.

Hello everyone, I'm interested in helping to get this article up to GA standards, and eventually take it to FA. I've compared the outlines of a number of Africa country articles at the GA level, as well as the article on Madagascar in French, and have a modified outline to propose. Please have a look and share your comments and opinions. If most of us can come to a consensus about how we'd like it to look, I would be happy to start making the revisions.

Sample outline

0. Etymology - citations added!

1. Geography - citations added!

General description, topography etc

a. climate

b. ecology

2. History - citations added!

Brief overview/summary

a. Early history

b. Kingdom of Madagascar

c. Colonial era

d. Independent state (Note - collapsed the four republics in the interest of brevity; will add cites shortly)

3. Government

General description of governmental structure, constitution etc

a. national symbols, insignia and anthem

b. administrative divisions

c. Military

d. Politics

e. foreign relations

f. Human rights

4. Economy

History, currency, growth and development plan etc.

a. natural resources

b. infrastructure (post, banks, transportation, communications)

c. international trade

d. domestic economy

e. tourism

6. Health

History, evolution, current resources, current objectives for the sector, stats

7. Education

History, evolution, current resources, current objectives for the sector, stats

8. Society

Traditional structures (fady, respect for ancestors, regional social structure variations)

a. ethnic diversity & demographics

b. languages

c. religions

9. culture and recreation

General features – oral traditions, lamba, zebu, tromba etc.

a. arts (performing arts, graphic arts, crafts)

b. architecture

c. music

d. cuisine

e. media

f. sports

NOTE - I have "music" as separate from "arts" because it's a massive subject and would overbalance the rest of the content if it were added into the arts sub-section. Thoughts? -- Lemurbaby (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to help as best I can, or at least review the article. Unfortunately, most of my sources only discuss the flora, fauna, and conservation, plus it looks like I'm going to be very busy for the first half of the year. I do see a problem with the article's structure and focus. It might be wise to see if there are any GA articles about island nations, because right now the article seems to focus on "Madagascar" as a nation, and not so much as an island. One good example might be New Zealand, or possibly Australia. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

After checking those two I see their outlines are similar to what I'm proposing here. When the content is developed further, that's when more care will need to be taken to incorporate both aspects of Madagascar: as a nation and as an island. As far as this outline, I originally made the choice to omit an etymology section (which many other country articles include), but on second thought I do think it should probably be added as the first section in the body of the article. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - I am currently working my way through this article and adding in citations and content where they are a bit thin. No doubt this will make an already long article even longer. After all the content is in place, I'll come back through and start trimming the fat by moving it into other articles where it will be useful. If you have Madagascar expertise, feel free to pitch in on incorporating reliable references or building up the weaker parts of this article. If you've been lurking and are not sure how to do any of that, give a shout out here or on my talk page and I will be happy to help you get started. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you need another uninvolved review or just some random comments :), please let me know, when you think, the article is stable enough. GermanJoe (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - I'm condensing some of these sections and recombining them because the article is too long. Once I'm done getting the meat of the content in place (almost there), I will start verifying references, adding more where needed, move on to polishing the formatting of refs and images, then invite peer review & copy edit. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. For your effort to upgrade the article, I would suggest that the lead section be substantially shortened, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. In particular lead sections should be no more than four paragraphs long; this one has five very long paragraphs, containing a length equivalent to maybe 15 ordinary paragraphs. Probably three quarters of the information in the lead should only appear later in the article. The Manual of Style says The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. [bolding added]

Good luck with your improvement project! Duoduoduo (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's replace the politically derived term "Caretaker government" with the much more accurate "Military Dictatorship". There is absolutely no basis for using the term "Caretaker government", especially utilising information from the embedded link.

41.188.7.84 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actual Malagasy government is not a military dictatorship but a transitional regime. Jagwar - (( talk )) 10:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jagwar. I concur. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So, when will this "transition" be? It has been indefineteley postponed and the military has run the country for 30 months now.

41.63.134.10 (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Elections are currently set for later this year, ideally before November[2]. Time will tell if that pans out, since dates have been set and postponed already several times, but in the meanwhile it is not accurate to say the military runs the country. Rajoelina and his cabinet are not members of the military. Rajoelina and his party, TGV, organized the popular movement that carried him to power - it was not organized by the military. Rajoelina selected several non-military Prime Ministers before finally settling on the current one, who does have a military background - He stated that he made the choice because he believed a PM with a military background would make better political decisions for the stability of the country in light of growing insecurity (several bombing attempts, kidnapping, protests that turned nasty and a general increase in violent and petty crime under the HAT). It is undeniable that Rajoelina had the support of portions of the military during events in 2009 which helped him secure his position (according to rumors, this support was purchased, but whether true or not the military did not orchestrate the 2009 events). The Malagasy who support Rajoelina's rise to power (and there are many) disagree with the term coup and characterize it as an uprising, recently drawing comparisons with the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and calling Ravalomanana the dictator. There is a very real divide, especially in Antananarivo, between the people who liked Ravalomanana and those who favor the opposition, the latter having found their champion in Rajoelina. But as long as the current administration insists that it is transitional, and continues to plan to hold elections, it would violate Wikipedia's standards of neutrality to call it anything other than a caretaker government, regardless of editors' personal views on the political situation there. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Lemurbaby, You sound awfully like an apologist for a military dictatorship! Are you going to be spouting the same propaganda next year, and the year after?

There is no ambiguousness here, check the Wikipedia link for caretaker government, it definitely does not apply.

41.74.219.99 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In Egypt and Tunisia, the current governments are being characterized as "caretaker governments" and in the case of Egypt, this is administered by the military (unlike in Madagascar). Given the facts stated above (and they are simply facts, not "propaganda"), the current regime cannot be characterized as a military dictatorship. What alternate term do you propose? Those who are familiar with the contributions I make on Malagasy topics here on Wikipedia, rather than just popping in to make random accusations, would know that I am only interested in objective facts, not bias (let alone being an "apologist" for the current regime). Many of my contributions here include facts that do not flatter the current administration. I also do not hesitate to include critiques of the former administrations. Surely you would agree that truth is more important than flattering one side or another in a dispute. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

is there any update from the bestowed wiki oracles on this rediculous 'caretaker' status? is this 'transitional' regime going to outlive Tito?

96.49.129.122 (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC) baden

"As the world's fourth largest island, scientist in Madagascar have discovered 615 new species between 1999 and 2010, but many of the exciting and colourful creatures are already endangered. They are: 385 plants, 42 invertebrates, 17 fish, 69 amphibians, 61 reptiles and 41 mammals." [Citation commented out for page layout reasons, please see edit mode if you want the information.]

Another user offered this contribution to the Ecology section, but it appears at least partially redundant and it's not entirely clear if these species are simply endangered species of Madagascar or species discovered in the past ten years. The reference is provided so if the original contributor or someone else gets to checking this and re-working how it's incorporated before I do, have at it. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been some back and forth between Odea and myself about whether to use the subheading I originally used, "Environmental challenges", or Odea's edit to "Environmental problems." I had originally reverted Odea's edit on the basis that the word "problems" is more value-laden than "challenges", which may infringe upon neutral point of view (NPOV). Odea changed it back on the grounds that the degree of damage and continuing threat to the environment constitutes a problem by any definition and that the term "challenge" is too weak a euphemism for the heading of the subsection.

I continue to maintain that encyclopedic style would dictate "challenges" is preferable to "problems" precisely because it is a more neutral characterization. I work in the international development field and issues such as the environmental situation in Madagascar generally are described as "challenges" because the term connotes a sense of working toward a solution; it acknowledges efforts on the part of the government and/or development partners and local communities to try to reverse the situation. It is the more widely utilized term in the professional world because it is perceived as less negative and more neutral than "problems". While I absolutely agree in simple parlance that massive environmental destruction is a "problem", it is also a "challenge," and in a choice between the terms I lean toward the more neutral, professional and common characterization for use in a neutral, professional (and aspiring to be scholarly!) reference like an encyclopedia.

What we don't need is an edit war, so I open the discussion up to anyone else who might want to contribute their ideas and thoughts. If we manage to come to a consensus (or at least a majority), we'll make sure the heading conforms with the outcome of the discussion. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no rebuttal to this rationale, and "challenges" is the more neutral and encyclopedic term, I have changed it back. Please do not revert changes to this heading without discussing here. It will be changed back and anyone engaging in an edit war without appropriate discussion on the talk page will be blocked. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A diambiguationlink is needed for "Madagasikara", which can be either a genus of freshwater snail (see: Pachychilidae) or the Malagasy word for Madagascar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaildoc (talk • contribs) 10:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Madagascar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I will review this. It may take me a while - its an important article. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Beginning comments

• The lede is quite long and contains many details. Some of the details could be removed, as they are in the article anyway, leaving just broad, summary statements in the lede.

• Shortened Lemurbaby (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• The many images are beautiful but the page is very slow to load. I wonder if a few, like Hurricane Clovis couldn't be removed without a loss to the article.

• Removed some of the photos Lemurbaby (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, it says "The island of Madagascar can be divided into three broad geographic zones." However, there are five images that don't seem to correspond to the three broad zones. It is difficult to untangle what the three broad geographic zones are and their general characteristics and importance.

• I reworded the section, so hopefully there is no longer an expectation that the photos should correspond with what were formerly characterized as three zones. In reality there are many mini-climates and a huge diversity of ecosystems on the island; the three zones are broad topographic generalizations but maybe the section is less confusion if I don't mention that notion in that way. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Presumably due to relatively lower population densities, Madagascar's dry deciduous rain forest has been better preserved than the eastern rain forests or the original woodlands of the high central plateau." - is there a citation for this, as generally dry areas all over the world are better preserved because mould, fungus and other sources of organic breakdown don't survive very well without water.

That statement is talking about deforestation and conservation, not fossilization or preservation of organic matter. As for the reference, yes, it does require something other than a tertiary ref (Britannica). – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is a {{cn}} tag under "Ecology".

I added that because of a problem I found, as noted on the talk page. I'm not starting an edit war, just trying to help nail down the factual details. Also, there is another factual problem in the "Environmental challenges" section, as noted on the talk page. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel that my concerns about that section have been addressed. The number of endemic species/genera/families will vary as discoveries are made and confirmed, so as long as the sources are good, that should be fine. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "is highly iconic of Madagascar" - don't think this is correct use of "iconic"

• The ravinala is a representative symbol of Madagascar, as demonstrated by its use in the Air Madagascar logo, which arguably makes it iconic in the secular sense. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "found high rates of endemism" - is "endemism" a word?

Yes. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

references

• A huge number of references (at least 31) come from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is behind a pay wall so I can't access it, and is a tertiary reference.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. (from reliable sources)

• Can some of these be replaced with secondary sources?

References using a travel guide (28 I think)

(examples)

• "Many native plant species are used as effective herbal remedies for a variety of afflictions, including the Madagascar periwinkle, which has recently been established as the most effective treatment for leukemia and Hodgkin's disease." and "The Madagascar periwinkle is key in the treatment of leukemia and Hodgkin's disease." - travel guide is not a reliable source for medical statements.
• "Approximately 44% of the population is younger than 15 years of age, while 53% are between the ages of 15 and 64. Those aged 65 and older form three percent of the total population." - need some supporting evidence from a census report or something besides a travel guide.
• "Queen Rasoherina accepted, first wedding Rainivoninahitriniony, then later deposing him and wedding his brother, Prime Minister Rainilaiarivony (1864–1895), who would go on to marry Queen Ranavalona II (1868–1883) and Queen Ranavalona III (1883–1897) in succession." - travel guide not a good source for historical information. History books?
• ""A 2008 study by the International Monetary Fund estimated that international donor aid formed 75% of foreign government investment and provided 50% of Madagascar's national budget." - can't you reference the IMF rather than a travel guide?

• I am going through and replacing most of the Bradt refs now. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

• Ref 106 is dead

• The original link is fine, but the archive process doesn't seem to have worked properly. I've removed the archive information. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Responses

• I was unaware of the tertiary rule and frankly in the realm of research it's hardly any different than most books that compile their information from various sources under only one theme instead of many... but okay, resourcing the EB and Bradt refs is going to take a little time but fortunately I have the day off on Wednesday. If you can keep going through the article and identifying whatever else you notice, but put the review officially on hold to leave me some time to make these changes on Wednesday, we can look at it again afterward and see how it's doing. I agree there are sections that seem undersourced because they draw entirely from one source (and when editors break up paragraphs without copying the ref to the end of the new sections, it makes it look like that portion has no ref at all). I can remove the Clovis photo and see what other photos could go (this will be tough! :D But I appreciate the need for a faster loading article). Lemurbaby (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Visionholder - the trouble with the percentages and numbers of endemic plant/animal species is that various sources cite different numbers. I suppose the best solution is to try to find a very good academic ecology article or other recent scientific source and cite that. I'll see what I can hunt down, but if you know of one feel free to update everything you can find.Lemurbaby (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• It's not really a "tertiary rule" - rather a preference since wikipedia is a tertiary source, it should avoid using other tertiary sources, but some it ok.
• Possible sources:

• Have you looked in CIA - The World Factbook (Madagascar} - January 19, 2012? For economic data rather than the travel guide?
• Also published January 19, 2012: Background Note: Madagascar - US Department of State?
• Madagascar profile - BBC News - November 24, 2011
• You could replace some of the figures in the article that are unsupported with info from these perhaps? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• FYI I didn't make as much headway on my day off as I'd hoped - internet connection was incredibly slow here in Rwanda (most likely because it was a holiday yesterday, and everyone was at an internet cafe surfing the net!) and I couldn't access or upload much. I'm still working on it actively though so please don't stop the review without warning. I'll fix the issues as quickly as my connection speed allows. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• I'll leave it open as long as you need. Don't worry, as long as you continue to work on it. It's hard to find sources - I looked around. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm almost done replacing refs. Then I'll revise the ecology/conservation sections to address the issues Visionholder identified. I'll let you know when I'm finished with all the changes. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ugh... slow internet is making this very difficult. Apparently in Uganda two weeks ago there was some kind of technical problem with their cable, and that's the one Rwanda depends on to access the net, so it's affecting us here too. Think upload/download speeds circa 1995 and you have a sense of the problem we have here right now. They say they will sort it out soon. I'll give it another go this weekend. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've tried to address all the issues - this is ready for you to look at again. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• ok, I'm looking at it - there's still some travel guide references in the "Ecology" section. (I'm going to try to get some advice from others on this issue.)
• on another note, would you consider substituting the image of traveler's palm, endemic to the eastern rain forests, highly iconic of Madagascar for the Madagascar periwinkle?

• But even if you don't want to (the periwinkle is a pretty flower), I'm really uncomfortable about the reference that the Madagascar periwinkle is an alternative therapy for Childhood leukemia, as it is not reliably sourced per reliable sources for medical statements. One primary source journal article is not enough to support such a statement.

MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Blofeld

Maybe you could add a section on law and order and crime (e.g crime figures, the Malagasy police force and court systems etc) the Media, (what are the main television/radio channels and newspapers etc?), Heraldry (e.g some information about the flags coat of arms and other flags used in the country) and also add something about Malagasy cuisine?. Also, how about a section on Palaeontology, extremely important on the island of course?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The only concern there is that the article is already at 130k... which is large for an article. Therefore if anything is added, it shouldn't be more than a small paragraph. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

reply

I have to agree with Visionholder. Already the article loads verrrry slowly in my browser, making editing it difficult. Also, for GA I don't think the article has to be all encompassing. Unless there are special issues about police force, court systems etc. - I believe it says it basically operates under a British common law system - my view is that more is not mandated. Perhaps something on the media would be interesting - if there's something interesting or controversial to say about it, e.g. internet access, censorship etc. The material covered in the article is very important. The ecology etc. is unique, whereas it's media etc. probably isn't. (I could be wrong!) MathewTownsend (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"British common law system"?? Where did you dream up that up from? The country is French and (doesn't) works under Napoleon Code (UGH!)

41.74.221.134 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Final comment

I've agonized over this article enough! It's not perfect, naturally, but it is good!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congradulations Lemurbaby!

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked the source of the statement that 80% of the plants and animals are endemic, and found that instead it said 90%, which I fixed. Also, the source did not list the types of animals also cited to it. Lastly, there appear to be some discrepancy on the numbers used... possibly because the source is a geography book, not a book from the biological sciences. For example, in the book Lemurs of Madagascar (3rd edition, 2010), Mittermeier et al. note five endemic bird families, not three (as stated in the article) (p. 70). Also, they note 14,000 to 15,000 plant species with 83% endemism (p. 68) For reptiles, it gives 363 non-marine reptile species as being endemic (p. 68). (The existing estimations for percentages are decent.) The book also gives different numbers for birds (109 species, 52% endemic, 37 endemic genera--p.70), but your existing source for that is an undated (but likely recent) web publication by Conservation International... which also puts out the book I'm citing. It's a tough call.

• I've revised with a recent journal article. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, I don't feel comfortable with the following wording: "...including the lemur infraorder of primates". Unfortunately, there are several competing classifications for lemurs, one of which includes African galagos and African/Asian lorisids within that infraorder, while the other excludes the aye-aye from the lemuriforms. If we can find a good source for that remainder of the sentence, I would suggest something like "including the lemurs (a type of prosimian primate)"... Anyway, the term "infraorder" may lose people. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Switched to your wording here - thanks for the suggestion. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The following statement may have some issues: "Approximately 70% is believed to have been destroyed between 1895 and 1925, when Madagascar was under French rule."

I checked the source, and although I value it highly for its criticism of the conservation efforts in Madagascar (something I plan to use in the not-too-distant future in other articles), I'm having a hard time corroborating the numbers it gives. The author cites "Hagan, 1996", but unfortunately, page 63 is not publicly viewable, and that's the page that lists his references. In the notes that are available, on note #7 (p. 62) he claims to have gotten some of his deforestation numbers by word-of-mouth from a researcher.

According to Lemurs of Madagascar (3rd edition, 2010), I have the following: "It is difficult to ascertain the full extent of forest that existed when people first arrived in Madagascar, but it seems likely that the combination of fire and grazing resulted in the loss of at least 50-60% of all forest between then and the start of the 20th century, much of this in the first 500 years of occupation." (p. 72) However, the source cited for the paragraph from which this was taken doesn't support this... instead, it focuses on 1953-2000.

In a 2010 academic article by B. E. Crowley (2010), we apparently have even more accurate data:

"An island-wide transition towards more open vegetation, particularly grasses, at the expense of woody vegetation coincided with a peak in Late Holocene aridity ca 1300-950 Cal BP (650-1000 CE)" (p. 2593)

Furthermore:

"It is estimated that humans came to Madagascar from Indonesia or Africa before 2300 Cal BP (350 BCE). Evidence of early human presence in the form of introduced Cannabis pollen, increased charcoal microparticles (suggesting an increase in the frequency or intensity of fire), and bones of extinct species bearing the signs of butchery in sediments occurs in southwestern Madagascar and along the western coastline ca 2300-1800 Cal BP (350 BCE - 150 CE). There is, however, no evidence for intensive human habitation in the southwest until 500-600 cal BP (1350 - 1450 CE). Although Cannabis pollen is present in lake sediments ca 2200 Cal BP (250 BCE) in the Central Highlands, charcoal levels in sediment cores suggest that interior parts of Madagascar did not have high human populations until roughly 1400 Cal BP (550 CE)." (p. 2593)

Here's the citation:

• Crowley, B.E. (2010). "A refined chronology of prehistoric Madagascar and the demise of the megafauna". Quaternary Science Reviews. 29 (19–20): 2591–2603. Bibcode:2010QSRv...29.2591C. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.06.030. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

If you would like a copy of this paper, just email me.

Now I certainly don't doubt that French colonization accelerated the deforestation process. What concerns me is that none of the conservation/academic sources mention the influence of Europeans, and most of the sharpest declines in Madagascar's megafauna occur ~500 years before they arrived, according to radiocarbon dates. Anyway, after posting this bit to ponder over, I plan to email Crowley to see if any hard facts have been published about the French influence, particularly regarding their logging and land use for cash crops. Again, I have no doubt that these occurred. What I'm not certain of is the severity. I also realize that both sides may be skewing the facts, especially since dates and rates of deforestation vary so widely in literature, giving people plenty of options to pick from. That is why I favor the scientific literature. Sedimentary pollen counts and radiocarbon dates are more likely to represent the facts than a bunch of historical finger pointing. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright... I have found a peer-reviewed source that discredits the statement in question:

• Agarwal, D.K.; Silander, J.A.; Gelfand, A.E.; Dewar, R.E.; Mickelson, J.G. (2005). "Tropical deforestation in Madagascar: Analysis using hierarchical, spatially explicit, Bayesian regression models" (PDF). Ecological Modelling. 185: 105–131. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.11.023.

Please read section 10.1 on page 124. There it states:

"Claims that most of the forest loss has occurred in recent decades are clearly misleading. The French colonial archives clearly shows concern over forest loss throughout French occupancy. In fact the claim, certainly exaggerated, was made that some 70% of the primary forest was destroyed between 1895 and 1925."

Other important quotes include: "Current and historical patterns of deforestation in Madagascar remain poorly understood, and controversial." (p. 106) Also: "Early in the 19th century, the first King of Madagascar proscribed the clearing and burning of forest." (p. 112) Otherwise, the most meaningful parts of the article start from page 124 and continue to the end.

Lemurbaby: We can try to come up with a concise statement about forest loss rates that doesn't violate WP:OR together, if you would like. However, I would like for you to review this article first. When you have had time to look this over, please share your thoughts below and we'll see what we can come up with. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to simply omit any discussion about rate of forest loss. It seems this is a subject that lacks academic consensus. It seems to me that including the data about the percentage of original forest lost and the practice of tavy is adequate to make the point that deforestation is an issue in Madagascar, at least for now. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've changed or added refs throughout the article and have hopefully fixed all the issues raised. I think it's ready for the next phase of the GA review. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Following the prehistoric breakup of the supercontinent Gondwana, Madagascar split from India around 88 million years ago, allowing plants and animals on the island to evolve in complete isolation."

Really!? Why does everything else have to be cited but this gets by? That is not proven fact and should be stated that this is a THEORY, there is no proof of "Gondwana" or "88 million years ago." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.94.48 (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement you quote is located in the lead, which is an opening summary that does not generally require citations as long as the material it is summarizing is cited in the body below. (In this case it is—see citation #12.) Otherwise, my friend, I recommend asking to sit in on a 5th grade science class, particularly when they talk about the scientific method. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

'The written history of Madagascar begins in the 7th century when Arabs established trading posts along the northwest coast and introduced Islam, the Arabic script (used to transcribe the Malagasy language in a form of writing known as sorabe), Arab astrology and other cultural elements.'

The source given for this citation actually says Arabs arrived in the 9th century rather than the 7th and doesn't specify which part of the island they were on. I haven't seen the 7th century claimed anywhere else (other than web pages ripped from Wikipedia). I don't have enough information to say that the claim is wrong, but if it's true it needs proper citation.Ithuvanian (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As the info-nazis have locked this page down, I will address some factual errors here, and hope some bestowed nobility may change them:

1) "extraction of nickel near Tamatave by Rio Tinto"

This should be: "extraction of nickel near Moramanga and processing near Tamatave by Sherritt"

http://www.Sherritt.com/Operations/Metals/Ambatovy-Joint-Venture

Considering that this article prefers PC terminology, maybe that should be "Toamasina"?

Rio Tinto has the iluminite mine in Fort Dauphin.

http://www.riotintomadagascar.com/english/aboutQMM.asp

2) "Two-thirds of Madagascar's power is supplied by hydroelectric power plants with the remaining one-third supplied by coal-burning plants."

Actually, Jirama does not have any "coal-burning plants". Sherritt does, but they are only in the start-up phase and dedicated to the Ambatovy operation.

Jirama produces all its non-hydro power from fuel oil powered diesel engines.

41.74.209.217 (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• When a page is "locked" (semi-protected) like this one, all it means is you need to create an ID and log in to Wikipedia in order to be able to edit. It's a way to prevent anonymous spamming and enable meaningful collaboration. Thanks for raising these clarifications and corrections. I'll be revising this section a bit in the coming week. The coal-burning plant piece comes from Encyclopedia Britannica, so I'd appreciate a source for your information - otherwise I'll have to stick with what I believe is generally a reputable and well-researched source. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• The section has been revised with new citations added. The issues raised here have been addressed, with the exception of the Jirama coal question. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, let's try this again, as it appears the info-nazis have been scurrying to delete any traces of logical and valid criticism. First off, Jirama has NO coal fired power generation. Maybe info-nazis could check this with Jirama rather than some school girl encyclopaedia, before they intentionally insert false information in Wikipedia. The info-nazis do not know even know the difference between KWhr and power, besides not even residing on the island. How many people will believe the false information, and how many kids will include it in their school assignments? As I wrote the other day, so you info-nazis hopefully may understand a little better, Wikipedia has a serious credibility issue with many people, and intentionally propagating falsehoods negates so much positive work that others may be doing for the project.

baden 41.74.210.81 (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the information about the methods of generating power at Jirama was not obvious on their website. You can see that this article has an enormous number of sources, and most of them are primary (i.e. not taken from an Encyclopedia), so the desire to identify correct firsthand sources of information is certainly real. For this one piece of information, a more credible source than the Encyclopedia Britannica has not yet been found. Since you seem to know where such information can be found, you would provide a helpful contribution by sharing a link to a credible source here, if you're not interested in making that edit to the article yourself (you'd just need to register, log in, then edit and provide the source in the same format as the other citations in the article). Keep in mind it does need to be a credible, print source of information (a newspaper/magazine article, a company website, a well-researched book) - unfortunately we can't use information we get by telephoning someone who works at a source, or an email, or a blog, or anything else that doesn't have some degree of substantiation or peer review built in. I'd be happy to help you make this fix to the article, but I'd need you to share the correct information to include and the credible source where you got it from. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let me suppose that if I were spend one minute to hold someone's hand and guide them to the Jirama website:

http://www.jirama.mg/

Where it states near the bottom:

"La Jirama totalise 114 centres de production électrique. 100 sont des centres alimentés par des groupes thermiques diesel, tandis que les restes sont des centres alimentés par des centrales hydroélectriques."

baden 189.230.186.138 (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked some more at the easily navigable and extremely informative Jirama page, and the "Electricite" drop down menu offers a gold mine of information. To help quantify production, there is a spreadsheet available:

http://www.jirama.mg/index.php?w=scripts&f=Jirama-page.php&act=pdcelec

and it shows that for 2012 (minus December), hydraulic electricity generation was 55.66% and diesel generator electricity production was 44.34%. This way, factual information can be included in Wikipedia rather then someone's errant guess.

baden 189.230.186.138 (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In light of your expressed concerns about Wikipedia credibility issues etc, and given the considerable need to strengthen the quality and coverage of WP (and Africa-related topics in particular), I'd encourage you to take a minute to sign up for WP and join the community so you can make these changes and other useful contributions yourself, including in protected pages like this one. But of course to do that you'd have to filter out some of your provocative and accusatory language or risk being accused of trolling and harassment, and be banned from the site. If you do decide you want to continue to contribute constructively to WP and you'd like some assistance in getting started, let me know and I'd be happy to help you. In the meantime, I'll make the change to the content based on the part of the site you pointed out. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you an expert in electricity generation? I'm interested to know what you make of the two pieces of data you highlighted. Despite the fact that Jirama has five times more diesel-powered generators than hydroelectric, does it look correct that 55% of the electricity generated came not from the diesel generators but from the hydroelectric ones? I want to be sure this data is correct and representative before we make changes. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Child immunizations against such diseases as hepatitis C, diphtheria and measles increased an average of 60% in this period, indicating low but increasing availability of basic medical services and treatments." Immunizations for "hepatitis C" currently do not exist - this is in error - presumably should be "hepatitis B" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.168.238 (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

At several points there has been material added here to emphasize the persecution of early Malagasy converts to Christianity in Madagascar during the reign of Ranavalona I. These executions were given much attention in historical documents based on Missionaries' accounts, generally without placing the deaths in context. Many, many more people died during her reign as a result of conscription to military and fanampoana (unpaid labor in lieu of monetary tax) as she continued the work of her predecessor Radama I in extending Merina rule over the island. She managed to preserve the sovereignty of Madagascar, but attempting to stamp out the European-introduced religion of Christianity was only one part of that effort; strengthening the military allowed her to repel naval attacks on the coast, and she took decisive action to protect traditional Malagasy cultural values by sending away the LMS missionaries. She did this not because they were Christian - she allowed them freedom of conscience and encouraged them to stay and share their technical/industrial knowledge to improve the quality of life for her people - but because the Missionaries refused to stop teaching the Bible. All of this is explained in more detail in the article on Ranavalona I. So to summarize: were there a lot of deaths during Ranavalona's reign? Yes. Did she persecute Christians? Yes, but it built up to that point gradually over the first seven years of her reign. Were there many Christian martyrs? Certainly not compared to people who died for other reasons during her reign (military, fanampoana, justice through tangena, which were not new innovations under her reign but longstanding traditions that were used more intensively by her). Was the persecution of Christians the main way that she preserved the island's sovereignty? No, this was primarily through cessation of friendly relations with Europeans and military action defending against European attacks on the coasts, but she did try to eradicate the European cultural influence by outlawing Christianity and executing a number of Malagasy who broke that law. It's important to ensure Wikipedia doesn't perpetuate the sensationalistic portrayal of this queen that began with the outcast LMS missionaries in the early 19th century. In a summary article like this, especially, mentioning the execution of a number of Christian converts doesn't have a place because it misdirects the reader's attention from the more important events occurring at the same time, thereby mischaracterizing her reign. 196.44.240.62 (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Alo-alo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Alo-alo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I was actually looking for some history on the Madagascar Plan today in order to find a source stating that Poland actually came up with the idea.

And I found plenty of sources. The relocation of Jews in Poland was initially considered by Poland and France. Poland even sent a research team to do so. The Nazis also proposed the idea, however. There is a bit of historical oversight not mentioning that fact however and I believe the article should be edited to reflect that. Here is an article on it: http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/madagascarplan.htm

And the corresponding sources: Browning, Christopher. "Madagascar Plan." Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Ed. Israel Gutman. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1990. Friedman, Philip. "The Lublin Reservation and the Madagascar Plan: Two Aspects of Nazi Jewish Policy During the Second World War," Roads to Extinction: Essays on the Holocaust. Ed. Ada June Friedman. New York: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1980. "Madagascar Plan." Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Macmillan and Keter, 1972. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamcgath (talk • contribs) 18:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I tried rewording for greater clarity. Hope this works. Thanks for pointing this out. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Most archaeologists estimate that the earliest settlers arrived in outrigger canoes from southern Borneo in successive waves throughout the period between 350 BCE and 550 CE"

It would be very interesting to know what route these settlers are thought to have taken from Borneo (did they island-hop direct across the Indian ocean?), and what prompted them to make such an unlikely journey, and for others from the exact same area to repeat the same unlikely journey. I guess that these facts are not be known for sure, but a short summary of expert opinion would be very interesting and useful at this point. 86.160.223.189 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not known. We only see traces that they were on the coasts, I believe. There is no way (at this point) to tell from that evidence what route they took. – Maky ^« talk » 03:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I was about to edit the article to add a link to Comoros, when I noticed first, that it was long-term semiprotected (... why?), and secondly, that someone had deliberately removed a whole bunch of them. I'm mystified as to why a single link to a neighbouring country, of less than commonplace familiarity, would be considered overlinking. Can someone explain, or better yet, fix? 84.203.39.242 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added the link, but don't have time to search for others that are needed. If you can give me a list, I will take care of it. I'm not sure why these links were omitted. – Maky ^« talk » 03:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! The other links were to Mauritius and Mozambique, per this edit. 84.203.39.242 (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The manual of style discourages linking to country names for some reason. The rationale in the MoS was never really clear to me, but many times editors instructed me to remove the links so I'm maintaining that here. How do you interpret that MoS instruction Alex? Lemurbaby (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This was a new one on me, so I'm slightly groping around here, but the MoS does indeed say to "avoid linking names of major geographic features and locations" -- though that is within the context "unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article". It later gives an example of linking United States in an economics article. I'd say within a geographical section, linking to names of countries that aren't necessarily commonplaces in the English-speaking world is certainly sensible, though. That'd come under the general rubric of "aiding understanding". I'll see if the talkpage lurkers at the MoS can clarify further. 84.203.39.242 (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What is discouraged is the formulaic linking of "United States", "France", "China", etc—country-names that few humans consulting en.WP would be unfamiliar with. Not only is it often hard to work out why a reader would want to divert to such general articles; usually if there must be a link, it would be far more appropriate that it be to a section or a more specific article (e.g., Agriculture in France). Wikilinks function far better when used selectively, given that readers use them far less than editors think they use them. But "Comoros" and other countries are far less well-known, and I believe deserve to be linked here.

I'm wondering why a normal dictionary word in English (coup d'etat) is linked. And why is "fourth-largest island" linked twice within a few paragraphs ... I'm going through the article now. Tony (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This has become a little farcical. This reader was certainly looking for link from Comoros, and was inconvenienced by there not being one. And on commenting this, the response is to... remove a whole lot more links? It seems pretty ridiculous to the extent of systematically delinking one of the island's official languages, which leaving the other, directly juxtaposed with it on the instances I noticed, alone. When exactly does "selectively" tip over into "arbitrarily" and "inconveniently sparsely"? 84.203.39.242 (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Those neighbouring/nearby country links seem fine, both on the basis of not being "major" (no offence intended) and also of being "relevant" and related links in the context, which I can easily imagine people on this page happily finding useful. I'd also restore the link to Indian Ocean though - the place is surrounded by it after all. The guidelines - and they are guidelines, not top-level policy - very definitely do not simply say "don't link countries" or other geographic features. Tony and I don't agree about everything on linking, but in this case there's not much cause for dispute, whether we're relying on common sense or the actual wording of the current MOS guidelines. I even agree about coup d'etat, although can't see the link did any harm - although it's an adopted English word, you might be surprised how many people wouldn't know what it meant or might be interested in following the term up in more detail (remember WP entries are detailed encyclopedia entries, not simple one-line dictionary definitions; plus that people can open other tabs for going into later rather than being somehow forced into immediately diverting away from their initial page). N-HH talk/edits 09:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and can we have Renaissance's "R" back, please? That's an outright orthographic disimprovement that seems entirely unrelated to the rest of the edit. I agree (with knobs on) about coup d'etat: that's not dictdef linking, it's a topical, well, topic. Exactly how much cognitive cost is there for having that link there, as against the "defeating the point of having a wiki in the first place" loss of it not being there for when some marginal proportion of readers are in want of it?

I don't know how Tony's script is working, but if it's just "blackballing" some destination articles as already over their inbound link quota, it might explain why it's doing things like taking a symmetrically linked three-part list like "raffia, fishing and forestry", shooting out the middle stump, and leaving the other two standing. If not, I'm a tad stumped myself. 84.203.39.242 (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• These are manual edits, the unlinkings. Surely I kept "raffia" linked ...? I've asked for advice about renaissance ... which confirms that your take is right; self-reverting now. Are you going to log in as a named editor? Tony (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as it is useful for the reader to be able to be linked to an article which improves his knowledge, there is not really the need to unlinked the names of these small islands which are not necessarily known worldwide, they can be linked at least once on the article, i'll would suggest to link Mauritius and Mozambique also to avoid any discrimination as Réunion, Comoros and Mayotte are already linked. Kingroyos (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"renaissance" → Renaissance. See for example, M-W. Recently changed, no rationale offered. 84.203.39.242 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done by User:Tony1.

They are beautiful, but I wonder whether a few could be shifted from the over-horizontalized galleries and into normal right-side position against the text above? Tony (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be very hard to do given the number of images and the limited range in which they are relevant to the surrounding text. In this case, I think one or two horizontal galleries are appropriate. – Maky ^« talk » 04:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't be hard at all to take, say, one (or two) and position them normally. Then the gallery would be less likely to leak over beyond peoples' window-widths, given that most readers don't have a mega-sized monitor or use the whole width of it for their browser window. I could try one or two to see whether editors like it ...? Tony (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that they all share a caption, I'm not sure how that would work. I'll leave this to you, Lemurbaby, and the other editors to figure out. – Maky ^« talk » 15:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I split them into two batches roughly corresponding to geographic portions of the island, which I hope makes them even more helpful to readers in terms of visualizing the diversity of the landscape. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The placement of the cute ring-tailed lemur image perhaps unintentionally created a paragraph division (at least in my browser). That seems unfortunate, as one paragraph introducing flora + fauna, then one about flora, then one about fauna is a nice transparent structure for the section; one graph about flora and two about fauna is less good. I've moved the image up to where the fauna paragraph properly starts (also removing a redundant sentence). Experimenting, I wasn't able to come up with any other way of joining up the two fauna paragraphs. Please take a look; is it all right like this? Any other ideas?

Incidentally, aren't the sentences about herbal remedies a little lost in this section? They feel a bit unexpected.

Many native plant species are used as effective herbal remedies for a variety of afflictions. This includes the Madagascar periwinkle, from which the drugs vinblastine and vincristine have been derived to effectively treat Hodgkin's disease, leukemia and other cancers.

What about moving that passage to "Natural resources and trade", with a little rephrasing to make it fit seamlessly there? Bishonen | talk 14:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

I'm thinking that natural resources are more along the lines of minerals. gems, oil, but extractions from flora and fauna sources which are used as pharmaceuticals would also qualify as natural resources. Not sure how to integrate it. Nice to see you here Bishonen.--MONGO 17:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the repositioning of the lemur image. Regarding the native plant species, I prefer to keep that info where it is. "Natural resources" seems to connote wide-scale exploitation (often involving a system of domestic or international trading of these commodities), whereas the use of local plants as herbal remedies is principally done on an individual level by people gathering twigs, leaves, roots and flowers from plants near them. The recent discovery and exploitation of the Madagascar Periwinkle is an exception, and even then it's been taken overseas for cultivation and processing into the medication (so this doesn't happen on Madagascar); I included it to illustrate the herbal potential of the plants there for eventual global exploitation but this isn't happening yet. Maybe I can find a way to reword that sentence so it feels like it's a better fit for the section. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

From the "Independent state" section:

Ratsiraka was then voted back into power on a platform of decentralization and economic reforms, but only gradual progress was made during his second tenure, which lasted from 1996 to 2001.

I can't find any reference to this "gradual progress" in the source (but then the source text is quite long and not easy to navigate). Also, "gradual progress" is an odd phrase, which reads a bit like a compromise after an edit war; surely progress is by its nature gradual? If it's meant as "little progress" or "no progress", it's better to say so. And could a better source be found? Or a relevant quote from the Marcus paper be posted in the footnote? This would allow the reader to perform a search, which would to a certain extent make up for the lack of pagination. Meanwhile, I've commented out the phrase "but only gradual progress was made during his second tenure, which lasted from 1996 to 2001". I recognize that it'll probably need to be restored in some, hopefully improved, form. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC).

• Thanks for identifying this ambiguity, and you're right, it should be changed. I would ask next time that you not comment out the entire sentence (most of which is unambiguous and supported by the source) but only the piece that seems problematic, if anything, since removing it creates a gap in the continuity for those reading the article. I'll have a look at this today, hopefully.Lemurbaby (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I screwed up. I meant to do what the edit summary says, and was sure I'd done it: i.e. commented out (not deleted) the second half of the sentence, the phrase "but only gradual progress was made during his second tenure, which lasted from 1996 to 2001", using the <!-- --> code. Instead it appears I deleted the entire sentence. I don't know how that happened — brainfart? Good job you caught it. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC).

Hi, here is an edit I have drafted for inclusion in the above mentioned section. I welcome any comments:

Madagascar is home to some of the world's finest rich orange and red pods of cocoa, which are increasingly used by Europe and America's finest chocolatiers. A surge in appetite for high-end chocolate sourced from single-origin growers has created a burgeoning market for the "dark gold".^[1] The craving for luxury chocolate has also fuelled an increase in the price of some varieties of cocoa in the past few years, with traders paying 10 times the world cocoa price for the best beans.^[1] Between 2009 and 2012, Madagascar in particular has yielded the most sought after beans and this has boosted the local economy considerably.^[1] A BBC report in September 2012 revealed that the livelihoods of the new cocoa farmers are at risk from armed bandits who roam the country hijacking stores and road shipments of beans. Stolen hauls can be worth around USD1,000 which is a fortune in Madagascar.^[1] OscarK878 (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is a very well-written and informative paragraph. Since country articles are meant to provide a brief overview, a paragraph with this level of detail would be better suited to another article, like Agriculture of Madagascar or Economy of Madagascar. I'd have to check whether I mention chocolate at all in the article, but if I haven't , it should most likely be added where vanilla is mentioned. I'll have a closer look later today and make an addition if needed. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• You need to put the material in your own words wherever you add it, Oscar. I'm afraid at present he paragraph would qualify as a copyright violation, since it repeats the formulations of the source practically word for word. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

Good point Bishonen. Thank you for the feedback, I will review the Copyright violations policy and ensure my edits adhere to it. Thanks again OscarK878 (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Original name of the Island was Madinatul Asgar meaning in Arabic "Little Madina"..after Madina in present day Saudi Arabia.Saracen.za (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a source at all? Jason Rees (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits where the article was restructured and uncited statements were added. Please discuss such significant changes on the talk page first—particularly on a featured article. Also, please provide reliable sources for new material. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Not even half. This much was taken off: "ean-Louis.">Acquier (1997), pp. 143–175</ref>" Messed up, needs fixed. LCS check (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does this page remain locked? Notably, the French and Malagasy pages are not locked, and I cannot find any other language pages which are. This lock violates the primary wiki philosophy.

189.188.12.156 (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC) baden

It's certainly time to try unprotection again. I've unprotected, and changed the move protection to semi. Let's see how it goes. Thanks for pointing it out, 189.xx. (For another time: the requests for protection page is generally the best place to request unprotection.) Bishonen | talk 09:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

Fingers crossed... things are heating up politically and will continue to do so at least through the presidential elections in July. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Drop a note on my talkpage if there's excessive vandalism. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

• Incidentally, concerning the presidential elections in July: maybe somebody would like to update Politics of Madagascar? It says that new elections are "currently" scheduled to be held around May, 2011... :-( Bishonen | talk 15:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

since the ficticious excuses for locking this english page have been indefinitly postponed, why cannot it be ulocked like the other 63 languages? why is only this page 'vandalised'?

24.84.53.242 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC) baden

The following information was entered by an anonymous user:

"In the online Flash game Pandemic 2, Madagascar is infamous for being especially difficult to infect due to the fact that it is only reachable by sea. This often leads to situations in which the player is unable to gain a foothold in the country because once the shipyards are shut down, it is impossible for any disease to reach the region. Because of this, infecting Madagascar in Pandemic 2 is considered one of the most infuriating goals in all of video games."

If an editor is interested in inserting this information, it would require a reference, and most likely some discussion of the appropriate place for its inclusion. I would imagine we might need to create another section like "In popular culture" that would also include mention of the Disney films, although I'm not sure this is really justifiable since countries feature in popular culture in so many ways, it runs the risk of becoming a section for trivia. Ideas? - Lemurbaby (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this would be trivia. The best that could be done would be to mention that Madagascar has been popularized in Disney films, online games, etc... in one sentence. Any detail would be extraneous and trivial. On top of that, it would be hard to fit into the current article. – Maky ^« talk » 20:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I tested the waters... but there's been too much graffiti since the unprotection a few days ago. I've reinstated semiprotection for three months, to cover the elections too. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

The source used to estimate percentage representation of the ethnic groups of Madagascar as relayed in the infobox only provides estimates for seven of the 16-20 or so Malagasy ethnic groups in the country, and doesn't provide percentages for the minorities that are not ethnically Malagasy, like the French, Chinese and Indo-Pakistanis. Indo-Pakistanis are estimated at 25,000 (0.1%), French are estimated at ~123,000 (0.5%), and Chinese are estimated at 60,000 (0.2%); together the non-Malagasy minorities add up to just around 0.8%, less than one percent of the population. Percentages are given for the seven largest ethnic groups (all ethnically Malagasy), and while none of the remaining 9-13 ethnically Malagasy groups individually total more than 5% of the population at most, even if they had equal numbers (and they don't), they would each constitute about 2.6% of the population, still vastly more significant in numbers than the non-Malagasy ethnic minorities. The question is how to handle the 24% currently described as "Other". It's been edited several times now to read "French and other". I feel this is misleading for the reader unfamiliar with the country, as placing "French" after "24%" implies that even if the French aren't the full 24%, they are the majority of it, when the numbers don't bear this out. One of the edit summaries made the case that while the French are a small minority in numbers, their impact was huge. I agree that the impact of French colonization was significant, but the place to make that case is in the political or historical part of the article, rather than in a portion of the article meant to enable the reader to envision the ethnic composition of the country. In addition, to play devil's advocate, it could be argued that the Indo-Pakistanis and Chinese have a larger impact economically within the country, given they have been the major holders of wealth, which has long been a source of socio-political tensions. But I maintain that either argument is irrelevant as this particular part of the article (ethnic groups as percentage of the population) is meant to enable the reader to quickly picture the proportion of various groups among the island's inhabitants, and the French are in this regard a very small presence. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and think we should leave it as it is right now UNTIL the talk page says otherwise. There is no need for any other revert edits to this unless that talk page agrees it first. The simple solution is to put a [note]--Inayity (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite - I'll concede to that logic, and since the infobox needn't be changed since FA status (something I should have considered, would have saved myself the trouble), a <no wiki> note wouldn't hurt things. --Katangais (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)