Talk:Sudanese civil war (2023–present)

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)

UPDATE: There was no reply here for a few days, so I went ahead and WP:BOLD removed the Wagner allegations from the info-box....The text there had stated that Wagner's involvement in the conflict was "alleged," but no source has been cited with anyone specifically alleging it. In the BBC article which was cited[1], the BBC seems to try to insinuate that Wagner might somehow be involved in the current conflict, but if you read carefully you'll see that they never actually specifically state this. And in fact they write that: "We've found no evidence that Russian mercenaries are currently inside the country. But there is evidence of Wagner's previous activities in Sudan, and Mr Prighozin's operations in the country have been targeted by both US and EU sanctions."

And none of the other people whose statements they report in that article (including that of Trump Admin official from three years ago) specifically allege Wagner involvement in the current conflict either.

A Military Africa article was also cited [2], but this one again has no mention of any specific allegation that Wagner is involved in the current conflict - siding with the militia forces against the government, as the info-box had alleged. In fact it actually cites a Sudanese government statement to the contrary: "The Sudanese government has also denied any knowledge of the Wagner group’s presence in the country." If Wagner were involved in the conflict and siding with the rebelling militia forces against the government, one would think that the government would be eager to make that known, in order to get more Western support...

In any case, in the absence of even any clearly stated allegations from reliable sources, it only makes sense to completely remove Wagner from the info-box. -2003:CA:870C:ED4:87F1:B283:22C9:D3E2 (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I undid your contribution as the section about Wanger provides enough argument to their inclusion. If you disagree; I’d recommend starting from that section, and work your way to the infobox; as the infobox is a summary and not were informative are contested FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma - With all due respect, you seem to be confused. Literally nothing in the Wagner section of the article substantiates the claim that Wagner is involved in the current conflict on the side of the militias against the government. Wagner likely worked with the (now-rebelling) militias at some point in the past, when they were under the control of the Sudanese government, but this is NOT the same thing as supporting these groups now, against the government of Sudan.

And indeed, if one operates under the assumption (as I do) that Wagner, despite its quasi "private" official status, is in fact a de-facto branch of the Russian state, it would make no sense at all for them to be trying to overthrow or destabilize a government which had just agreed to host a Russian military base (a naval base on the Red Sea). There are multiple reports from shortly prior to the start of the conflict about how the Sudanese government was in the process of finalizing that deal with Russia. [3]

In any event, while the "Wagner" section of the article itself could probably use some work and better clarification, the info-box, which directly stated that Wagner was involved in this conflict on the anti-government side is the more pressing issue. And unless/until you can find a source which substantiates their involvement in the current conflict, on the anti-government side, Wagner should not be included in the info-box at all. I'm going ahead and removing it again, as there's zero substantiation at this point. -2003:CA:870C:ED4:87F1:B283:22C9:D3E2 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Magma is stuck up even when everything points towards Wagner not being involved in the current conflict. Fenn Viktor (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue of Wagner support has already been discussed, see previous discussion here [4]. General consensus was that Wagner provided support to the RSF BEFORE the current conflict, while there is no evidence Wagner is providing support DURING this conflict, which is two different things. So, the alleged Wagner support should be removed until more (reliable) sources confirm they are providing support during this conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd really like people to actually contribute to this conversation prior to re-adding Wagner in the infobox. I agree that until RSes clearly state that Wagner is actively supporting the RSF during the conflict, Wagner shouldn't be added to the infobox. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Presidentofyes12 I appreciate doing due diligence but RSF and Wagner statement or denial should be included but shouldn’t change anything as it should be viewed as a primary source unless it was supported by independent analysis. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, support can take many forms, from diplomatic support, via technical and intelligence aid, or sale of arms, through to active support in military operations. Unless we can say what kind and degree of support, it's a bit pointless - and dangerous - saying country X supports group Y, when that support may be no more than diplomatic, or tactical advice. I note that we are again saying that Egypt is fighting - although we have no more than a single ex-CIA analyst in MEE claiming this, and editor's assuming that Egypt having sent planes BEFORE the conflict, is actively attacking with them DURING the conflict. That's an astonishly low level of sourcing for the claim that Egypt is at war and killing people in Sudan (the meaning of being a belligerent) IMO. Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete I will remove Egypt president from infobox as that is not substantiated in any form. As for Egypt as supporter, I will improve that section soon FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tobby72 please see this discussion and the one here Talk:2023 Sudan conflict/Archive 1#Sock puppets - Extended confirmed protection in essence saying it is an allegation after credible sources reported on Wagner involvement is not acceptable. if you disagree you need to start with the Wagner section and not the infobox. denial by RSF is considered primary source FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@EkoGraf:, @FuzzyMagma:, @Pincrete:, @Presidentofyes12:, @Fenn Viktor:, FuzzyMagma claimed that "last consensus is not to include the word allegation or refused". – diff Your thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not remove your edit. I just made similar to other notes about supporting group. See this … FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any previous consensus was - but my own position is that all current 'supporters' should not be in the infobox as the nature/degree and certainty of their support is insufficiently established, but attributed text is OK. Though no one doubts that Wagner HAS provided material support in the past, there is insufficient certainty to say they continue to do so NOW. It seems especially 'iffy' to place Wagner under the Russia flag. If we have to add an 'alleged' to such claims, to me that is an indicator that the claim shouldn't be in the infobox nor in WP:VOICE anyway. Infoboxes are not places for nuance and adding 'refuted/denied' to poorly sourced and unclear accusations in an infobox seems like a 'cop-out' to me. Attributed text accommodates nuance far more easily. Pincrete (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Pincrete:. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tobby72 With the same logic, can we remove Libya too, as far as what is written in the text their support is also not clear FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma:. Done -- Diff -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Help with Timeline section & Timeline article

As discussed in #Split of "Timeline" section, the Timeline section of the article has become large enough to warrant a split- I have done such a split to the article Timeline of the 2023 Sudan conflict. I'd like to note that the new article needs to be expanded, and the Timeline section must be compressed, so if anyone could help me with those tasks, I'd appreciate it. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Presidentofyes12 second the idea. Go for it and I will support you FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Presidentofyes12 have a look to 2023 Sudan conflict#Timeline and let me know if the summary is good. Also section Reactions can be moved to an article to simialr to Reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Ethopia

@Sanad real this is the talk page FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

oh ok i think that ethiopia should be included as a third belligerent because of their attack on the al fushqa district even though it was a relatively minor skirmish Sanad real (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

(Argument for support) If you look to the 2023 Sudan conflict#Ethiopia you will find this information mentioned along with Ethiopia’s denial. As both the source for the attack an denial can be considered WP:Primary sources thus they can be discussed but not included in the infobox

(Argument for belligerent) In addition, Ethiopia attack does not makes it a belligerent in this conflict which is between SAF and RAF. You can start a new page discussing the Sudanese-Ethiopian conflict,

But as far as this page goes, Ethiopia is not a belligerent, and by Wikipedia policy, it’s not a supporter either. FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sanad real Actually there is already an article about that, see Al-Fashaga conflict which can use some improvement FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

sudan is a primary source too and also that's why i wrote (ALLEGED,DENIED BY ETHIOPIA Sanad real (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yah that’s why is not included as supporter anyway. As belligerent - as you did - is not even to be considered as above argument. Please read what I wrote to the end and visit the links in my reply to familiarise yourself with things around here.

getting into a debate in your first 2 edits is not a good sign. Take a step back and educate yourself rather that trying to force your narrative. FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

i have read it already how about this

Ethiopia (alleged, denied by Ethiopia) (limited combat only in al fashaga region) Sanad real (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think you did. The reasons are given above when discussing adding Ethiopia as belligerent which you did not address FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

i have proof

On 19 April, the Sudanese newspaper Al-Sudani reported that the SAF had repelled an invasion by the Ethiopian Armed Forces in the disputed Al Fushqa District. The report alleged that the Ethiopian Army had carried out an attack with tanks, armored vehicles, and infantry and that the SAF had inflicted heavy losses on Ethiopian personnel and equipment. It said that the SAF was monitoring "unusual activity among the Ethiopian forces" since the start of hostilities with the RSF and that Ethiopian forces were carrying out intensive reconnaissance and surveillance operations along the border. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed denied that clashes had occurred, blaming agitators for the reports.

it clearly states from a primary source (sudan)that the SAF repelled and invasion by ethiopia even though abiy ahmed denies it Sanad real (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

do i just add ethiopia and continue this tomorrrow Sanad real (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

IMO this is very poor sourcing for the claim you wish to make - one would expect more international coverage if the claim were credible. WP putting it in as a fact and then saying it is denied is not a very good substitute for verifying its truth. It could possibly be mentioned as an attributed claim in text, but doesn't deserve to be in the infobox - which should be for reliably and widely established facts. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Sudani issued an apology for the confusion. Ethiopia involvement truned out to be a hoax! FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

ok i understand no more Ethiopia this is enough proof Me Sanad (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the discussion Me Sanad (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Me Sanad and @Sanad real creating a new account does not solve your problems, you are actually now in a worse position and your IP might get blocked. Please go to your User talk and apologise unreservedly for your mistake and ask to be unbanned. Once that is done please join one of the mentor program so someone can help you with familiarising yourself with policies and etiquette. The way you conduct yourself here can alone get you banned. You need to start to listen. This project is not about you or your opinion, it’s a collaborative work. Stay safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

ok thank you i will join your program just don't ban me please i really want to contribute to wikipedia Me Sanad (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

and again omani bro was just my brothers account Me Sanad (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I think it’s rich to assume that!

Within 5 edits, this account went to war, and became a socket puppeteer. Only took them 5 edits!

See above who brought them to the talk, go to their talk and see who talk to them and they decided just not to listen although they there were at odd with couple of policies and just basic human curtesy.

I think before coming by and throwing shade and an unsolicited advice, you should first do your due diligence. I did far more than what the policy recommended although I didn’t have too. I did not expect applauds but neither this FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I just saw them repeatedly trying to push a claim, which, yes, is not Wikipedia policy (or even good etiquette anywhere), but did not deserve a ban in my mind. I didn't notice the fact they switched accounts as the names were so similar, and in light of this, yes, your actions make way more sense. My bad, I apologize for misreading the situation. Chaotic Enby (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that and sorry for taking your comment a little bit personally

Anyway, this person actually had 4 accounts. And if you go to the contribution to their account it’s was very disruptive to start with

even when they were panned (not by me), I was the one advising them on how to get unbanned and learn from this experience (see my comment above)

I understand your sentiment (it was not easy journey for me to integrate), and I understand there is a need for editors focusing on these topics/regions but I really think I tried my best. They now have 2nd chance after 6 months, I hope they can make good use of it FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry too for reacting without seeing the whole picture! And thanks a lot for the support you gave, I really apologize for misunderstanding what happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Pictures

I wonder if there are already usable non-map images for this article. It just feels different monitoring a conflict on Wiki without much pics. Borgenland (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I asked people to upload their own pictures of the conflict to commons using the tag "2023 Sudan conflict" so keep an eye there .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good after I get confirmed I will add images too Me Sanad (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Be aware that we cannot use copyrighted images (so for example we can't use most news images) . Pincrete (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I edit

Can I please edit something real quick I just need to change the duration of the war so far from 1 month to 1 month and 1 day 85.97.203.15 (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)