Talk:Liberia - Wikipedia

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 26, 2005, July 26, 2006, July 26, 2007, July 26, 2008, July 26, 2009, and July 26, 2010.

Theres bias in this bit here "The harsh dictatorial atmosphere that gripped the country was due largely to Samuel Doe's rule. ", which is just under the 1989 and 1999 Civil Wars section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wta121 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing promotional left in the Sirleaf section. It sounds fairly neutral to me, and I have had no interest in Liberia at all.

DF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.240.89 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the previous contributor. I stumbled onto this page, and I wondered what the flag meant. I don't know what this section was like before, but now it is a neutral statement of verifiable facts. OldBoar (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• PBS
• Source for culture expansion/cites. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

From my research and sourcing for this and other Liberian articles using official government sources and local media: measurements are Imperial, except temps which use Celsius. Spelling is a mixture of UK and American English, for instance programme, but both kilometer and kilometre. As to the conversion templates, those should remain in use, if one spelling is preferred over the other, the template is designed for that, see {{Convert}}. Ideally though, the order should be reversed to miles first, which would also eliminate the spelling differences. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article was originally written in American English, so, per WP policy/guidelines, it should be in American English (whether or not the govt. is consistent).

Template "is designed for that"? Why do I even have to think about adding a spelling switch? I saw a discussion a while back on the template page. I thought this would have been resolved by now. The units should be entered into the template as they are to be spelled in the results. Can't that be fixed? PeterH2 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

For the template, you add |sp=us and that's it. But, again, the listing of the values needs to be reversed as they use imperial and not metric in Liberia, which solves any spelling problem of km.

As to your WP:ENGVAR item, actually you might want to study that a little closer, and take a minute to reflect on your statement. If we go by your contention, if someone from the USA first wrote the article about Australia using American English, then that would mean the article would have to remain in American English. That just isn't how that works, as ENGVAR explains: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation."

Here, Liberia is an English-speaking nation, thus we use their variety of English. Which tends to be a hybrid due to its founding by US folks, but being in a more British region, and some later ties to Britain. The part that you are attempting to implement (WP:RETAIN) clearly states: "...unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." Thus per it, and WP:COMMONSENSE, is that the national variety for a nation trumps any prior use. RETAIN is meant more for articles such as automobile or physics and other universal articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could the editor who questioned the weights and measures section explain his concern about it? It appears that most if not all the information is verified. Where is the problem? Michael Glass (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The issue is one of synthesis. It is verifiable that a certain government report used miles as a unit of measurement and some other used kilometers. What is original research is to point to primary documents about bridges and roads and synthesize that to make a conclusion about the consistency of units of measure in Liberia. Almost everything in that section after "the reality is less clear cut" is original research. What you need is a reliable secondary source that says that the use of units of measure is inconsistent, and then you can cite that rather than citing specific government reports. Oren0 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation. As I understand it, the evidence I cited is not the problem, but concluding that the evidence is not clearcut is a step too far for you. Is that the way you see it? Michael Glass (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have now removed the phrase that could be classed as a conclusion, but left the evidence of the usage. Michael Glass (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Of the population, 4% hold indigenous beliefs, 85% are Christians, and 12% are Muslims.[3]"
"It is estimated that as much as 40 percent of the population of Liberia practices either Christianity or Christianity combined with elements of traditional indigenous religious beliefs.[60] Approximately 40 percent exclusively practices traditional indigenous religious beliefs.[60] An estimated 20 percent of the population practices Islam"

So which is it? 98.176.12.43 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply