Talk:Human rights in Sudan

The story reflects only one point of view. It also adds more myths to facts. What I am presenting are examples, to show that the whole page needs a review.

"There also have been several reported cases of crucifixions carried out in Sudan." is entirely unsubstantiable.

• Not entirely, there have been reported cases.
  • Then citation is needed.

The number of displacements has no citations, and in fact there are two numbers (over 800,000 and 100,000).

Slavery is presented as a fact, when it is disputed by various groups. Check Slavery in Sudan. And the statement that "Enslavement persists in Sudanese society." cannot be supported by just picking an example of two, even if they were proven and if they support the indictment of the Sudanese government. Government is different from society.

• You mean the Sudanese government?
  • Ok. I need to spell out this one. The two examples are not proven in my opinion. Even if they were, this is not a proof that enslavement persists, so I don't agree with that. If enslavement does exist, which it is not, then this is (allegedly) the fault of the Sudanese government, and does not prove that enslavement persists in Sudanese society. So I did mean that the Sudanese government is different from the Sudanese society, same as everywhere else. And that the quoted statement is wrong on multiple levels.

"While nongovernmental organizations argue over how to end slavery, few deny the existence of the practice" needs a citation, and in fact there are many groups in Europe that do dispute that. May be this is a US-centric view?

• The article on Slavery in Sudan shows only the Sudanese government denying it.
  • I would refer you to ESPAC among others. In fact, the article on Slavery in Sudan does mention that ESPAC is questioning this in the Fraud section.

"(not counting those sold as forced labor in Libya)" not even alleged, after googling for it, anywhere else.

• Perhaps you missed, [1]

[2] among many others.

• • The first page is of course of historical interest, northern Sudanese and Turco-Egyptian traders used to do that in the 19th century in the period of Turco-Egyptian rule of Sudan. The second page is a second hand quotation from the London Observer. I wasn't able to find the direct quote. However, virtually the same quotation was done in [3] and the historical context is clear in this page. I agree that there used to be slavery in the 19th century, and that slaves got exported, probably to Libya at that time among other countries. If you can clarify the second quote by getting the direct one, or if you have any other pages, please give it to us, and cite them from the text.

The section on Religious Persecution doesn't have a single internet citation. "Facts" presented by Macram Max Gassis and CSI are frequently disputed, see [4].[5]. And his extreme account of " ...forced conversions of Christians to Islam, concentration camps, genocide of the Nuba people, systematic rape of women, enslavement of children ..." has not been supported by other witnesses.

• The section remains undisputed at Persecution of Christians
  • Yes, thanks for flagging that up for me. This is exactly the same section that I dispute here, copied without any citations. So the same logic goes for both the paragraphs here and at Persecution of Christians. Please include any citations, or citation of other witnesses, if available. Otherwise I am still disputing the section on both pages.

Reports about the situation of human rights in Sudan are frequently issued by Sudan Human Rights Organization and Amnesty International among other organizations. These usually reflect a more neutral POV than either the Sudanese government or some US organizations.

• Judging the reliability is difficult. But Amnesty is usually fairly accurate. Can you define which US organizations are good and which ones bad?
  • I agree that reliability judgements are difficult. From my point of view, I agree that Amnesty is usually accurate. In my opinion, Christian Solidarity International and affiliated organizations are the ones that are circulating these claims. Of course, I cannot flag all US organizations as good/bad. But in Wikipedia, I suggest that CSI claims should be presented as claims, and other POV should be shown as well.

On another note, shouldn't the pages Slavery in Sudan and Human rights in Sudan be merged? --Karouri 19:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Both articles are of considerable size now, so I would say no. 74.137.230.39 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably yes, now. Note, however, that all of the paragraphs of Human rights in Sudan belong to Slavery in Sudan or Darfur conflict. Even the disputed religious persecution section is directly copied from Persecution of Christians. So there is currently no real content in Human rights in Sudan as it stands. --Karouri 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Religious Persecution section removal

I'm removing the Religious Persecution section of this article. The citations are coming from extremely questionable organizations. Their sites are here: Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Human Rights Voice. The second one sounds particularly disreputable. All sources in the article claim to be Human Rights organizations, but all seem to be Christian front organizations with intentions of proselytization, etc.. --Kitrus 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More stonings.

Sudan wouldn't know what Human Rights were if they jumped up and bit them on the arse. [6] What is with Sudan? I read the article trying to understand why arabs are invading the place and installing their religion and their religions version of law, but I still fail to understand how a country that is predominantly occupied by black african tribespeople is being run by a minority of arab islamic colonialists? 211.30.75.123 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arabs, as you put it, are not invading the country. There is no 'Arab' colonialist agenda. The Arabs you have heard about are really black Nubians who are culturally and religiously similar to the Arabs. The Arabs in Sudan, to you, would look identical to the non-Arabs in Darfur. The situation has been incorrectly characterized by western points of view as a situation in which it is Islam vs. Christianity or Arabs vs. Africans, when in fact the Darfur conflict is one that revolves around tribal lines and the scarcity of arable land in the region. Most of the victims in Darfur are civilians, obviously, however they are being targeted by both sides of the conflict. So, your view that it is some sort of terrible Arab invasion and colonialist campaign is simply misguided by sadly ignorant statements in the 'west' about the two sides in the conflict. Look up pictures of Sudanese Arabs and Sudanese non-Arabs, and ask yourself "If they switched clothing styles, would I even notice?" Also, the rebels in Darfur are made up of primarily Muslim people from various non-Arabized tribes. They view the central government, dominated by Arabized Nubians, as being neglectful of their part of the country. Meanwhile, the central government, controlled by what you would consider to be black Africans (but are Africans who share cultural similarities with Arabs) has recruited Arabized tribes in the area of Darfur to try and destroy the rebels by crushing their spirit through civilian attacks as well as military action. Israel happens to employ a similar tactic against Palestinian militias (though not on so grand a scale), so this is not a unique event and while it is important to focus on it, it is not the only genocide occurring in the world right now. The argument from the central government is that it is not genocide because the rebels are also muslim. They say that it is a land dispute and their goal is not to eradicate a people but to crush a rebellion. They also claim that the real culprits aren't the Janjaweed but the Darfur rebels, African Muslims who are trying to settle scores with the government by killing its Arab Muslim sympathizers. In truth, both sides are likely at fault for the disgusting acts being committed. If you will notice, the Janjaweed are attacking Muslim groups. Who are these groups? They are the Fur and Zaghawa people. Read the Wikipedia entries about their people. They are Muslim. So educate yourself in a subject before you decide to go around spouting off moronic statements and misinformation, my friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.48.19.93 (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please be careful where you sling that colonialist insult. Before you do it again, you would be well advised to remember that colonialism is a CHRISTIAN European (i.e. white) invention and all the major perpetrators of colonialism in history were European Christian nations. All the genocides associated with colonialism (remember the Native Americans?) were caused by European Christians. I don't mean to be too confrontational here, but it troubles me to see such ignorance about such important topics as Darfur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.48.19.93 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

what about the arab colonizations of the iberian penisula (al andalus)??? neither christian nor european (if white or not depends on definition of white people)