Talk:UNITA

Africa: Angola Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Angola (assessed as Top-importance).

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: African Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of South Africa#aparthied|apartheid South Africa]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

North Korea

North Korea actually did not support UNITA, it supported the MPLA. This, in fact, is largely what contributed to the cooling of relations between Zaire and North Korea during the 1970s (culminating, in 1977, with the withdrawal of North Korean military advisors). source

DPRK supported UNITA, extensively, as detailed in the source I provided. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~). Perspicacite 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1977? The MPLA started fighting against the Portuguese in 1961. Your evidence is that they started working with the MPLA sixteen years after they resorted to armed conflict? Perspicacite 04:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. 1977 is the year North Korea withdrew its military advisors, not the year it started supporting the MPLA. However, I concede the point, I was unaware N.K. had actually supported the MPLA. Josh 04:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing ideology

So what about the UNITA of today? What do they stand for? In the past their ideology has shifted from Maoism to social democracy to conservatism. At present is UNITA a party of the Right, Left or Centre? They seem, ironically enough as of 2008 to be taking a leftwing line against the MPLA, by complaining that the nation's oil wealth has not been distributed to Angola's impoverished majority.

Can anyone help in this area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.104 (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNITA was never a Maoist party. According to Savimbi, it was a democratic socialist party (see the Quotes section on his page), and Savimbi told the U.S. media in the mid-1980s "I consider myself a democratic socialist." Josh (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article should focus more on his ideology (or lack thereof) and the fact that UNITA wasn't initially an anti-communist rebel group. Savimbi went from proclaiming a people's war against the US imperialists and Portuguese colonialists while praising Mao and socialism, to posturing as an ardent foe of socialism. The latter, however, was only when dealing with the West. At home he presented his battles as against the Mestiço elite and against the MPLA's supposed pseudo-concern for the peasantry. He was a pretty impressive opportunist.

There are two online reads (neither in English) on Savimbi's ideology (though the latter is focused more on his overall life):

The article "A história secreta da ideologia da Unita," which can be found on AngoNotícias;
The article "'ЧЕРНЫЙ ПЕТУХ' АНГОЛЫ," which can be found on Africana.ru. --Ismail (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue should be covered in a section dedicated to UNITA's ideology, I myself am quite confused as to what their past and present views are (I'm just confused about the MPLA's views, that page could also use an ideology section). Charles Essie (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CIA influence in this article

This article has a clear pro-CIA bias. Probably written by some deep-south segregationist as an apologia for their personal involvment in their failed attempt to prop up apartheid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.81.207 (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article is very biased. It doesn't mention that the governments of Mandela and Mbeki continued supplying UNITA after the end of the apartheid in South Africa. They supported UNITA to the extent that the MPLA called for international sanctions against South Africa- in 1998.

Prunier, Gerard. From Genocide to Continental War. page 190 and page 421, note 55. Also found in IRIN dispatch September 15, 1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.40.165 (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What year did the CIA stop its relations with UNITA? What year did the United States stop its relations with UNITA? I hope further edits to this article answer those questions. JoshNarins (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After 1992 the USA stopped supporting UNITA, since by that time the ruling MPLA had agreed to abandon its claims to Marxism-Leninism, had allowed other political parties, and had adopted neoliberal economic reforms. UNITA from 1992-1997 was supported by Zaire. --Ismail (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UNITA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103123040/http://www.consuladodeangola.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=27 to http://www.consuladodeangola.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move

So today an IP attempted to move this article to National Union for the Total Independence of Angola via a cut and paste move, which is . . . less than ideal. It's been reverted, but does anyone think this article would be better at that title? If so we can move it properly. I just want a consensus to point to first. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 02:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current title should be kept. Whenever i read history and news-related books they always refer to UNITA rather than the full name. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, UNITA was referred to the world over by its acronym rather than its full, slightly unwieldy name. Same thing goes for the MPLA and FNLA. --Ismail (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the role of South African mercenaries in MPLA's fight against UNITA

I feel like this article in general is really barebones and deliberately hides the role that Executive Outcomes had in assisting the MPLA in their fight against Unita. Specially in aiding the MPLA taking back from UNITA several mines which were being used to fund UNITA's war effort. This must be corrected. 179.35.13.37 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please remove the formerly ideology

Unita was a maoist guerilla group for a very short time, when it became a right wing group. https://www.britannica.com/topic/UNITA

It is just confusing Grizi fu (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]