Jump to content

Talk:Sudanese civil war (2023–present): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Talk:2023 Sudan conflict/Archive 1) (bot
→‎Wagner...: new section
Line 251: Line 251:
:Hi, hello please see [[#Split of "Timeline" section]], discussion there is taking place regarding it [[User:Presidentofyes12|Presidentofyes12]] ([[User talk:Presidentofyes12|talk]]) 21:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
:Hi, hello please see [[#Split of "Timeline" section]], discussion there is taking place regarding it [[User:Presidentofyes12|Presidentofyes12]] ([[User talk:Presidentofyes12|talk]]) 21:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
:: Thanks. I didn't notice right away. [[User:DBatura|DBatura]] ([[User talk:DBatura|talk]]) 22:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
:: Thanks. I didn't notice right away. [[User:DBatura|DBatura]] ([[User talk:DBatura|talk]]) 22:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

== Wagner... ==

The info-box lists Wagner as a backer of the militia forces. My understanding though is that while Wagner had previously done training with the militias, this was when they were still under the government's control. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Russia supports an overthrow of the Sudanese government, and in fact they'd recently concluded an agreement for Sudan to host a Russian naval base, so it'd make no sense for them to try to overthrow or destabilize a government that had just agreed to let them set up a new base. -[[Special:Contributions/2003:CA:870C:E18:5741:A3A3:2CE8:D385|2003:CA:870C:E18:5741:A3A3:2CE8:D385]] ([[User talk:2003:CA:870C:E18:5741:A3A3:2CE8:D385|talk]]) 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:05, 1 May 2023


New article?

I think we should make a article about a refugee crisis, I've seen evidence of thousands of Khartoum residents and thousands of other people from all across the story fleeing to Chad and Egypt, the last reports reported the number at at least 20,000 for Chad but nothing for Egypt this number has probably rised as the conflict intensified even more after the ceasefire. I think there is enough info and enough intensity to make another article related to this, I'll also try and find sources to support this possibly.

NYMan6 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a couple of updates on the main page. Feel free to incorporate them. Borgenland (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be any other battles added

As we can see Khartoum is not only area of battle and Sudan is a pretty large country and there are battles happening in other areas when will thouse battles have their own page 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:2542:282B:5FEB:7683 (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take it by 'page' you mean 'article'. In order for other battles to qualify for an article. We need quite a bit of info about the battle, of which we currently don't have from reliable sources. FusionSub (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only 'Battle of Khartoum' fits the category of battle as of right now NYMan6 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should Create "Battle of Geneina(2023), since clashes began again Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasoliveira653 We'd need several sources at least 20 and enough coverage at the beginning of the article for it to happen NYMan6 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several paragraphs describing looting and fighting in Geneina
Just mentions that fighting happened
Describes the fighting between the two sides, includes quotes from a local
Only mentions that eyewitnesses reported violence
So, we have several levels of source quality, but the events have definitely been covered. Also I don't think that 20 sources are needed for an article to be created? That seems a little excessive, and definitely not policy. Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here is an article that goes deeper in detail about the events in Geneina Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Darfur deserves to have some sort of page given that it and Khartoum appear to be bearing the brunt of the fighting so far. Borgenland (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borgenland I'd name it "Darfur offensive (2023)" just like we named 'Kyiv offensive (2022)'
I'd start it with:
The Darfur offensive is a theater or offensive in Sudan caused by the 2023 Sudan conflict . It involves attacks by the Rapid Support Forces across the Chadian-Sudanese borders and in several Sudanese towns and citites, beginning on 15 April 2023, for control of Darfur, the largest region of Sudan, and it's cities. As of 26 April 2023, the RSF controls most of Darfur, including cities such Geneina. NYMan6 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. Hopefully more details come out. Borgenland (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that way we could collect sources to finalize it and actually make the article NYMan6 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt as a belligerent

Egypt is currently listed as a belligerent, with a note pointing to the section 2023 Sudan conflict#Egypt. That section, however, does not support naming Egypt as a party here: the presence of a few (destroyed) fighter jets and some personnel has been explained with exercises predating the conflict. RSf themselves, according to our text, accepted that explanation and repatriated the Egyptian prisoners. The WSJ is invoked as a source here, but the reference is missing. The article can probably be found, but at this point it is also outdated. The most forceful source for the section is some ex-CIA's Twitter account. That's not enough, bluecheck or not.

This may be an instance where Wikipedia making a claim could have outsized effects, considering everybody else is (rightly) equivocating on the question. Let's not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, please. I'm removing Egypt as a belligerent and will try to defuse the section on the topic. K. Oblique 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Oblique: The two citations placed next to Egypt note state that Egyptian aircraft have been involved in airstrikes against RSF and that Egyptian personnel have been providing intelligence and tactical support to SAF. The second citation reaffirms from RSF that an unnamed country has been launching airstrikes against them. Destroyed aircraft and POW's you have cited above are wholly unrelated to Egyptian involvement. Reinstated. Ecrusized (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unnamed country" is, almost tautologically, rather weak support for any one country.
  • As above, some ex-CIA making bold statements on Twitter is not a reliable source.
  • The conflict parties seem to agree, possibly even against better knowledge, that Egypt isn't involved. Otherwise, why should RSF return Egyptian POWs within days if they consider them enemies?
K. Oblique 08:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A single former CIA analyst, (with or without local expertise/up to date info and attributed by MEE) is an extraordinarily weak source upon which to claim that Egypt is actively engaged militarily in a 'foreign' country. Agree that the RSF claims that 'someone is attacking us' prove nothing. WP is meant to be a place for RS info not surmisal rendered as fact.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is now an additional source The WSJ being used to support the assertion that Egypt is an active belligerent in this conflict. Actually the piece says the opposite: "A powerful Libyan militia leader and the Egyptian military have sent military support to rival generals battling (in Sudan) … people familiar with the matter say, an illustration of how the fighting threatens to draw in regional powers." Fairly self-evidently a country cannot simultaneously be already actively fighting but there be a risk that they might be 'drawn into' that same fighting. That regional powers may support rival local factions seems fairly indisputable, but, by analogy, US, Germany, France UK etc etc support Ukraine, but NONE of them are active belligerents in that conflict, No source AFAI can see supports that any outside power is actively engaged in fighting at present, ie they are NOT belligerents and it is WP:OR to say they are. Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Supported by" section in the infobox

Someone removed (twice) the "supported by" section (including references to the Libyan National Army and the Wagner Group) on the ground that no consensus had been reached on these and that they were officially denied. It appears to be common practice to include supporters even despite denials (cf. South Sudanese Civil War, Mali War), is there any compelling reason not to do it here? Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they are denied, wait for more evident sources or at best, official claims to be placed in the lead's box, perhaps? RCB88 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the statement is wrong, but the currently chaotic Sudanese Government (in the case of Wagner) ends up believing it, or just considering it possible, they might act on that (false) belief. They could, for example, arrest some Russians that could otherwise have left the country. That, in turn, would require a response from Russia. K. Oblique 08:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the Sudanese Government gets its intel from a Wikipedia infobox with (alleged) written on it, I'm not sure it's exactly our fault. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These "support" came before the conflict, not during it, as sources read in the sub-section. @Borgenland: support by Wagner was before the conflict, so this is irrelevant, while support by Haftar is only vague one plane claimed supply from one source. RCB88 (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @RCB88:. Support that was provided before the conflict is not the same as support during the conflict. Also, multiple sources would be needed for confirmation of support during the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Support did not come before the conflict. As it is quoted in the reference Khalifa Haftar, the commander of a faction that controls eastern Libya, dispatched at least one plane to fly military supplies to Sudan's paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Ecrusized (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the pre-conflict support I was referring to Wagner. As for the LNA, so far only one source has made this claim. Like I said, multiple sources would be needed. EkoGraf (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @EkoGraf:. Both Dagalo and al-Burhan had close ties to Russia before the fighting broke out, and while it is true that Wagner supported Dagalo's RSF before the current conflict, as did the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other actors, there is so far no clear evidence that Wagner supports the RSF during the ongoing fighting. Both RSF and Wagner denied the allegations, and even al-Burhan said he had no evidence for the claims. The only source is CNN, which quoted some anonymous US officials about Wagner's alleged plans to support the RSF. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Word used to describe the conflict tracker

This is not really a discussion about the move, more a centralized place to keep the sources and track which sources call it what. Please update this as more stories come out. This sources list is just a list of all generally reliable sources that cover this event as well as a couple unclear or others that cover it. The article chosen is the most recent one from each news source

Al Jazeera: Clashes/conflict
Amnesty Intl: Conflict
AP: Conflict/conflict
Axios: Urban warfare/risking civil war/fighting
Barrons: Fierce fighting/conflict
BBC: Conflict/chaos/fighting
Bloomberg: Fighting/war
CBS: Crisis/fighting/conflict | Tagged with "civil war"
Christian Science Monitor: Battle/conflict/clashes
CNBC: Conflict/clashes/fighting
CNN: Fierce fighting/conflict/clashes
Crisis Group: Conflict/clashes/fighting | Conflict could be a civil war
DW: Fighting/violence/conflict
Economist: Fighting/conflict | Sliding towards civil war
Financial Express: Battle/conflict
Forbes: Power struggle/clashes/conflict
Foreign Policy: Fighting/violence
Fox: Violence/conflict | "On the brink of another civil war"
FT: Power struggle/fighting/conflict | "If the conflict in Sudan escalates into civil war"
Haaretz: Violence/fighting/clashes
HRW: Fighting/conflict
Indian Express: Battle/conflict/clashes/fighting
India Today: Conflict
Insider: Conflict/fighting | "to get out of the civil war zone" in title
LA Times: Clashes/conflict/fighting
MSNBC: Violence/power struggle
NBC: Conflict/clashes/fighting | "conflict ... threatens to explode into all-out civil war" and "rush to escape before Sudan plunges into civil war"
NewsNation: Conflict/clashes/fighting
Newsweek: Conflict/clashes/battle/fighting
New Yorker: Conflict/clashes
NPR: Conflict/war
NY Post: Fighting | "country’s continued descent into a bloody civil war." on April 22
NYT: Conflict
PBS: Conflict/battle/clashes
Politico: Conflict
Red Cross: Conflict
Reuters: Conflict/battle/war | "Sudan to the brink of civil war" and "fear of an all-out civil war"
SCMP: Conflict/clashes/fighting
Seattle Times: Conflict
Sky News: Violence/fighting/conflict/clashes
Spiegel: Conflict | "It is a power struggle between two men, a civil war without civilians"
Sydney Morning Herald: Battle/fighting
The Atlantic: Conflict
The Conversation: Conflict | "Sudan stands on the brink of yet another civil war"
The Guardian: Clashes/conflict | "as a burgeoning civil war threatens to destabilise"
The Hill: Combat/conflict
The Independent: Fighting/conflict/battle | Tagged with civil war
The Nation: Violence
The Times (Israel): Conflict/fighting/battles | the conflict should be seen as “the first round of a civil war.”
The Times (UK): Fighting/violence (could be more behind paywall)
Time: Violence/conflict/clashes/fighting
UN: Violence/chaos/conflict/clashes/fighting
USA Today: Fighting/conflict/clashes
US Gov (DOD): Conflict/fighting
USIP: Confrontation/clashes/fighting
US News: Conflict/clashes/fighting
Vanity Fair: Clashes/fighting/war
WaPo: Fighting/conflicy/conflagration
WHO: Clashes/conflict/fighting | A WHO rep warned "could spiral into a deadly civil war."
WSJ: Power battle
Yahoo: Bloody clashes/conflict
PalauanReich🗣️ 00:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great thread! balladsone 04:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Loved this! NYMan6 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets - Extended confirmed protection

Article is still having edit warring by possibly newly created sock puppet accounts. I have opened a new extended protection request to decrease the amount of edit warring and stop the sock puppeting. I would appreciate if rest of the top editors could support the request at that page. Thanks. @Borgenland, TheWhiterCloud, FuzzyMagma, 25stargeneral, Blaylockjam10, and Borysk5: Ecrusized (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecrusized: I suggest you drop the stick and your illusion of sockpuppetry. There are 3 editors you are reverting against. RCB88 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed alleged. Please do not put it again as denials by RCF or any is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both @Ecrusized and @RCB88 for your work on the article but your dispute is starting to become really disruptive and will scare other editors who are keen to contribute. May I ask both of you just to take time off, away from this article, just to cool down and gain a fresh perspective. I really do not think any1 is here to “win an argument” but rather to help. I’m not siding with any1 but please think beyond your dispute FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt as a belligerent in the infobox

FuzzyMagma, you removed 'alleged' here. Thus WP is currently saying that Egyptian forces are currently actively participating in this fighting. The sources used are 1) a single ex-CIA analyst whose current local expertise or status is wholly unknown and whom even Middle Eastern Eye attributes. MEE does not say Egypt is doing any fighting, using its own voice, but we do in our infobox. 2) Al Arabiya, quotes RSF as claiming that 'foreign aircraft' were attacking them. This is near worthless as a claim, apart from their claims being questionable, how could they know the aircraft were 'foreign' without identifying them? 3) WSJ has now been added, which certainly endorses that regional powers support rival local factions, but it actually contradicts the idea that the regional powers are currently actively militarily engaged. The WSJ article actually says the opposite: "A powerful Libyan militia leader and the Egyptian military have sent military support to rival generals battling (in Sudan) … people familiar with the matter say, an illustration of how the fighting threatens to draw in regional powers." Fairly self-evidently a country cannot simultaneously be already actively fighting but also there be a risk that they might be 'drawn into' that fighting. The part of the WSJ which we quote says: "Egypt, which has officially called for an end to the fighting, sent jet fighters just before the fighting started and additional pilots soon after to support Gen. Burhan. " Again this is not proof of any military engagement by Egypt, though it does imply a willingness to become involved.

That regional powers may support rival local factions seems fairly indisputable, but, by analogy, US, Germany, France UK etc etc support Ukraine, very actively in some cases, but NONE of these are belligerents in that conflict, Not a single source AFAI can see does more than imply that Egypt could be actually engaged in fighting at present, or soon - ie they are NOT belligerents and it is WP:OR for us to say they are.

The text gives a fairly accurate, nuanced account of the possible support and or engagement by Egypt, but the infobox IMO makes a wholly unqualified claim, based on SYNTH-y reading of sources. When we are accusing a country of killing people - or attempting to do so - it is extremely irresponsible for us to not have rock-solid sourcing for the claim. We don't have a single source AFAI can see apart from the single ex-CIA man, who may be ill-informed, or even a fantasist for all we know. IMO we should remove the Egyptian involvement from the infobox, since an infobox is not a proper place for anything other than rock-solid certainties, which this at present is not IMO. Pincrete (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the assertion that Egypt is a belligerent from the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As WSJ quotes, "(Egypt) ...sent jet fighters just before the fighting started and additional pilots soon after to support Gen. Burhan". Can't get any clearer than this. Ecrusized (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support is not active engagement. The UK sent planes, troops and weapons to Eastern Europe before the Russian invasion of Ukraine (hoping to contain any threat). The US and Germany and many others are continuing to supply weaponry to Ukraine. The UK trains Ukrainian forces, but NONE of them is a 'belligerent' in that conflict. If Egypt were widely acknowledged to be fighting, the majority of sources would say it explicitly. They don't - simple as that. Support is not active engagement Can't get any clearer than this No source except a single retired CIA analyst actually says that Egyptian forces are actively involved at present and the WSJ implies they aren't YET if you read the rest of it. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps sent jet fighters just before the fighting started does not mean "now those jets are fighting", but it does indicate a general willingness to support the Govt 'side'. Pincrete (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about Ukraine or any other subject. Reference states "(Egypt) sent planes ...soon after (the fighting started) to support Gen. Burhan" and that's that. Ecrusized (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine was an example to make the point that 'support' is not the same as active engagement. Countries frequently send aircraft as support that never actually fight. The presence of the aircraft is intended to stabilise. None the less, you cannot avoid the fact that no source is actually saying that foreign forces are engaged in fighting AS YET in Sudan. Pincrete (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m on the side of removing both Egypt, libya and Wagner from the infobox as there involvement needs alot contextualisation which can be discussed in the text. All of these support groups either deny or not actually supporting. It’s not a cleat cut situation compared to other wars. The example for Ukraine is a good one as Belarus is overtly supporting Russia or even can be considered part of the invasion.
@Ecrusized and @Pincrete hope you agree FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked closely at Libya and Wagner, but I agree with your general point - that the amount of contextualisation makes anything other than VERY clear active engagement unsuitable for the infobox. I actually started a discussion at RSN as to whether the sources support including Egypt as a belligerent. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The example of Ukraine or any other article is basically WP:OTHERCONTENT. None of the belligerents should be removed as long as reliable sources such as CNN, BBC and WSJ are reporting it. Denials from Russia and other warlords are wholly irrelevant. Russian state media such as RT are WP:DEPRECATED. Furthermore this argument is not a ballot box, Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Nevertheless I will ping top editors in order to avoid getting into an edit war. @Borgenland, TheWhiterCloud, FuzzyMagma, 25stargeneral, Blaylockjam10, and Borysk5: Ecrusized (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized don’t worry about edit wars, I have no plans on changing the text until we get more clarity. It’s a learning process that will help me when editing other pages.
@Pincrete can you share the link for the RSN discussion. I think we can find more experienced editors there who can help with a 3O FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma, RSN discussion is here. the only person to weigh in so far agrees that an attributed claim (from MEE) is OK but that Egypt's involvement should not be stated in WP:VOICE as a fact - which is what putting it unqualified in the infobox does. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized please don’t tag “top editors”. Try WP:3O, normally an admin or experienced editor will weigh in and clarifies which policies applies here FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. I'm not a veteran here I just happen to have my computer turned on 20 hours a day with an internet tab that I haven't closed showing liveblogs from a cacophony of news sites. Borgenland (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrusized re None of the belligerents should be removed as long as reliable sources such as CNN, BBC and WSJ are reporting it, I cannot comment on Libya nor Wagner, since I don't know what is claimed about them nor what the sources say, but my whole point about Egypt is that the sources simply DON'T say that Egypt is a belligerent. Egypt favours one side - certainly - Egypt sent planes before and pilots since the start of the conflict, sure. But the assertion that Egypt is presently intentionally killing people in Sudan (or at least trying to kill them) - which is what being a belligerent means - is not supported by anyone except a former CIA analyst in MEE. Support takes many forms, political, diplomatic, technical etc, etc, but you have leapt to the conclusion that Egypt's 'support' necessarily equals active military engagement by them and their planes - it doesn't. We would expect much stronger and clearer sources if Egypt actually were fighting in Sudan, though WSJ speaks of it as a danger. I made the Ukraine analogy because you didn't seem to acknowledge that 'support' is not automatically the same as actively fighting. You still don't offer any sources that say what Egypt is supposedly doing. Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete I hope you can look to UAE and Libya involvement too as BBC and CNN mention of them is - I believe - similar to Egypt.
  • UAE: for the case of UAE that cited source use a very deceiving title UAE behind RSF's attempted coup in Sudan, leaked recording says but in the article it says Social media users have circulated a recording attributed to the former head of Sudanese intelligence, Salah Gosh, accusing the United Arab Emirates of being behind recent events in Sudan.. Thus UAE Should be removed from infobox removed from infobox as it should not be included from the 1st place given the quality of the source and it is not being included in the text
  • Libya: the Ahram (egyptian news paper with ties to the goverment) says Sudan's army chief says Haftar denies supporting RSF; no confirmation on Wagner Group’s involvement which contradict CNN report on the Wagner Group envolvement (but later will talk about that and the source should be dismissed anyway as it quotes primary sources). Other cited sources like The Guardian talks about Khalifa Haftar ties to RSF before this conflict. Should be removed from infobox
  • Wagner Group: this is a clear cut as CNN, Aljazeera and NYT make wagner involvement clear. Should stay in the infobox
  • Egypt: Al Arabiya is quoting RSF alleging Egypt involvement. Then you have former CIA analyst Cameron Hudson allegations with no evidence. The other source and the BBC asserts that Egyptian equipment and supporting personnel were conducting exercises with the Sudanese military prior to the conflict. Wall Street Journal is behind a payement wall so please quote what is written in the article if you think it will provide more inforamtion. Should be removed from infobox
FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What WSJ says is already quoted in ref, "Egyptian military have sent military support to rival generals...Egypt, which has officially called for an end to the fighting, sent jet fighters just before the fighting started and additional pilots soon after to support Gen. Burhan" Ecrusized (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized hmmm first this is not mentioned in the Egypt section, second the end of that section says After initial confusion, the RSF accepted the explanation that Egyptian equipment and supporting personnel were conducting exercises with the Sudanese military prior to the outbreak of hostilities cited to BBC. These are two conflicting accounts FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Libya, WSJ asserts that Hafter has dispatched a plane with supplies to RSF on 17 April. after fighting erupted. Denials are wholly irrelevant. Ecrusized (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt does not participate in this conflict or support one side on the other until now. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"While there may be some sources discussing this claim or idea, it's important to keep in mind that there is currently no clear evidence to support it. As such, it would be more accurate to view it as speculation at this time. It's always important to critically evaluate information and sources to make informed decisions." Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah SchneiderCH who are you quoting? FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized again you need to add the 17 of April as it was not clear wether it was before or after FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: I have placed 17 April in the LNA reference quote. Ecrusized (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudanese Doctor Group

Is the Sudan Doctors Union the same as the Sudan Doctors Syndicate? I keep finding variations in news outlets. Borgenland (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland yes (at least in the news), if you are asking about who reporters casualties FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borgenland Yes, new outlets can report it differently which varies between romanization in languages or their choices NYMan6 (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Group Icon in the infobox

Wagner Group is a private company, similar to Triple Canopy and Blackwater (company) both operated in Iraq with contracts from US army. They have been involved in different contracts but they are not Russia o considered a Russian army FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing this on?? According to its article. "It is variously described as a... de facto private army of Russian President Vladimir Putin." [1][2] and "It is widely speculated that the Wagner Group is used by the Russian government to allow for plausible deniability in certain conflicts, and to obscure from the public the number of casualties and financial costs of Russia's foreign interventions.[3]" Ecrusized (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to its Wikipedia article, right next to the "de facto private army" text you cited, it is also described as "a private military company (PMC), [or] a network of mercenaries". We should keep the footnote describing its connection to Russia, while also keeping the OG Wagner Group icon there Presidentofyes12 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are ZERO reliable sources, aside from Russian state propaganda which are WP:DEPRECATED that state Wagner Group to have the slightest degree of autonomy from the Russian Federal Government. Ecrusized (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s based on the way we used the insignia of RSF and SAF and not the Sudanese flag. It you know the exact unit then use their insignia that why it’s for FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed anyway due to copyright on non free image. I will put the Russian flag back FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wagner often does RF's 'dirty work' and no one thinks they are wholly independent, but the relationship is not one in which they are directly answerable to Russia either It is widely speculated that the Wagner Group is used by the Russian government … for various reasons, does not mean they ARE directly in Russia's chain of command, nor that anyone knows what the relationship actually IS - hence "speculated" - and we shouldn't imply that they are officially 'Russian'. The underlying problems though to my mind are that we are asking the infobox to give nuanced answers, when it is meant to only have simple factual, uncontroversial 'facts', and to an extent we are asking this article to cover matters better covered on the Wagner group article, or elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Faulkner, Christopher (June 2022). Cruickshank, Paul; Hummel, Kristina (eds.). "Undermining Democracy and Exploiting Clients: The Wagner Group's Nefarious Activities in Africa" (PDF). CTC Sentinel. 15 (6). West Point, New York: Combating Terrorism Center: 28–37. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 16 August 2022.
  2. ^ "What is the Wagner Group, Russia's mercenary organisation?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 16 March 2022. "From a legal perspective, Wagner doesn't exist," says Sorcha MacLeod
  3. ^ Brimelow, Ben. "Russia is using mercenaries to make it look like it's losing fewer troops in Syria". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

Add this to: Rapid Support Forces supported by:

@Masterchief117343 that is not a good source. It’s a leaked record assumed to be of someone who is alleging UAE involvement. That is alot of assumptions and primary sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 2nd source. But it doesn’t backup you edit FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split of "Timeline" section

When would the Timeline section in the article become large enough to warrant its own article? What size would it have to be, would it be after a certain time period, etc. Not saying it should be done now, just asking when it would be necessary Presidentofyes12 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Presidentofyes12, I would rather make article like we did for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the section is becoming bigger, I am also looking into making some battle articles. NYMan6 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I could try to start on a Darfur campaign (2023) article, or some other name. Possibly "Darfur clashes", "Darfur offensive", etc Presidentofyes12 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we also put the reaction section into an article and just summarise what is written in this article FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing Wikipedia:Splitting, sections above 50 KB would likely benefit from a split and summary- the Timeline seems to meet that criteria, at about 52 KB. On the other hand, sections below 30 KB would not, and the Reactions section is about 29 KB. Of course whether or not a split is necessary for sections below 30 KB depends on the actual subject of the section but in this case I don't believe a split there is warranted yet. If it grows then it'd make more sense to split over time. The Timeline section, though, could benefit from a split in the near future Presidentofyes12 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner rather than later. In its current state, the article is almost unreadable because the timeline occupies a gigantic part of it. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: @WaltCip thats why I gave the idea above, I'd like the article to be named something such as Timeline of the 2023 Sudan clashes, like we did with Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine: Prelude and several other's NYMan6 (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the creation of a separate article on timeline. DBatura (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am looking into that as well Darfur offensive (2023) or Darfur campaign (2023) NYMan6 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offer

Isn't it time to create an article Chronology of the 2023 Sudan conflict? DBatura (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hello please see #Split of "Timeline" section, discussion there is taking place regarding it Presidentofyes12 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't notice right away. DBatura (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner...

The info-box lists Wagner as a backer of the militia forces. My understanding though is that while Wagner had previously done training with the militias, this was when they were still under the government's control. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Russia supports an overthrow of the Sudanese government, and in fact they'd recently concluded an agreement for Sudan to host a Russian naval base, so it'd make no sense for them to try to overthrow or destabilize a government that had just agreed to let them set up a new base. -2003:CA:870C:E18:5741:A3A3:2CE8:D385 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudanese_civil_war_(2023–present)&oldid=1152687234"