Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
ASG1266 (talk | contribs)
coupling.
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
Line 72: Line 72:
::This isn't a [[WP:VOTE|ballot box]], if reliable sources states that a country is providing arms to belligerents in an active conflict, users voting cannot prevent it from being included in the article infobox. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::This isn't a [[WP:VOTE|ballot box]], if reliable sources states that a country is providing arms to belligerents in an active conflict, users voting cannot prevent it from being included in the article infobox. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Firstly, supplying with weapons doesn't make one a combatant, only those actually fighting are combatants. Secondly this source says nothing new: ''"Most recently in Sudan, the Wagner Group has been supplying Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces with surface-to-air missiles to fight against Sudan’s army, contributing to a prolonged armed conflict that only results in further chaos in the region."'' When is 'recently'? The most this proves is that ''(at some time recently)'', Wagner has sold SAM's to RSF, which we already record. Almost all weaponry in Sudan has been supplied by outside countries/suppliers - as Sudan does not produce arms . Whether - and how far - such supplying goes beyond purely commercial transactions isn't clear. I still think that while Wagner's ''(possible)'' involvement is properly rendered in text, it would be [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]] to put anything in the infobox as to the exact nature of their involvement. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 05:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Firstly, supplying with weapons doesn't make one a combatant, only those actually fighting are combatants. Secondly this source says nothing new: ''"Most recently in Sudan, the Wagner Group has been supplying Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces with surface-to-air missiles to fight against Sudan’s army, contributing to a prolonged armed conflict that only results in further chaos in the region."'' When is 'recently'? The most this proves is that ''(at some time recently)'', Wagner has sold SAM's to RSF, which we already record. Almost all weaponry in Sudan has been supplied by outside countries/suppliers - as Sudan does not produce arms . Whether - and how far - such supplying goes beyond purely commercial transactions isn't clear. I still think that while Wagner's ''(possible)'' involvement is properly rendered in text, it would be [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]] to put anything in the infobox as to the exact nature of their involvement. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 05:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

== Russian meddling ==

Russia is supporting the RSF. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:3030:815:CA06:1:0:3C8A:794E|2A02:3030:815:CA06:1:0:3C8A:794E]] ([[User talk:2A02:3030:815:CA06:1:0:3C8A:794E|talk]]) 17:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:11, 29 May 2023

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Sounds good after I get confirmed I will add images too Me Sanad (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
We definitely can use copyrighted images, as long as the images' copyright is compatible with intellectually free usage. See Commons:Commons:Licensing, e.g. The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag. It's true that most news images have copyrights that prevent them from being accepted on Wikimedia Commons. Boud (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to sudan war

At this point, the death toll appears to have climbed past 1000, which wikipedia's list of armed conflicts considers to count as a full scale war. There are several sources now referring to the conflict as a "war," such as the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/14/sudan-war-egypt-burhan-hemedti/

https://punchng.com/things-to-know-as-sudan-war-enters-one-month/

https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/05/15/alaskans-family-stuck-war-torn-sudan-humanitarian-crisis-continues/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65525006 209.214.231.30 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the cherry picking of articles, but even these sources call it Sudan conflict, see the last two items on your own list. heck! the last item says that on the title! FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Things to know as Sudan war enters one month" sounds like they're calling it a war bud. I mean its right there in the title. And it's hardly cherry picked when war is a term that is being used more and more. I think you should learn what cherrypicking as a word means. 209.214.231.30 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC page calls the 2023 conflict the "Sudan conflict", just like this article does; references to "wars" in that article refer to past events. If a multitude of reliable, secondary sources start primarily using the term "war", then we can change the name. Until then, there's nothing wrong with the title "Sudan conflict" as it's accurate and well-sourced. For as long as there's any question as to whether or not "War"/"Civil war" is the best descriptor, "conflict" will remain the better title.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I think it's time to call it a war. Here are additional fresh sources that call it an actual war
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/world/africa/sudan-war-military-scenarios.html
[2]https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/air-strikes-hit-khartoums-outskirts-sudans-war-enters-sixth-week-2023-05-20/ Hesham mohamed abd el moty (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are two reliable sources (although nyt is behind a paid wall) and I think we may soon need to have a move discussion as we did with previous names FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not either of them referring to war as the main descriptor within the article - "One month since Sudan’s conflict erupted" … "as fighting that has trapped civilians in a humanitarian crisis and displaced more than a million entered its sixth week". Headlines don't count and are often shorthand. The present title is sufficiently clear for a situation that doesn't have a COMMONNAME as yet. What on earth is the obsession here with giving a more 'dramatic' name?Pincrete (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A better death toll estimate?

So, according to the artice, the death toll of the conflict is at least 1000, while the page dealing with the battle in Geneina claims that the death toll in West Darfur alone is as high as 2000. Shouldn't the former figure be updated? 79.164.45.230 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Group involved

@FuzzyMagma and Tobby72:US treasury department asserts that Wagner Group has been suppling RSF with surface-to-air missile to fight Sudan's army.[3] In light of these news it's best to reinstate Russia under combatants of RSF. Ecrusized (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecrusized added to the appropriate section first then please. And I’m airing on the side of leaving the infobox as it is. @Pincrete might also agree with that FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a ballot box, if reliable sources states that a country is providing arms to belligerents in an active conflict, users voting cannot prevent it from being included in the article infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, supplying with weapons doesn't make one a combatant, only those actually fighting are combatants. Secondly this source says nothing new: "Most recently in Sudan, the Wagner Group has been supplying Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces with surface-to-air missiles to fight against Sudan’s army, contributing to a prolonged armed conflict that only results in further chaos in the region." When is 'recently'? The most this proves is that (at some time recently), Wagner has sold SAM's to RSF, which we already record. Almost all weaponry in Sudan has been supplied by outside countries/suppliers - as Sudan does not produce arms . Whether - and how far - such supplying goes beyond purely commercial transactions isn't clear. I still think that while Wagner's (possible) involvement is properly rendered in text, it would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to put anything in the infobox as to the exact nature of their involvement. Pincrete (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian meddling

Russia is supporting the RSF. 2A02:3030:815:CA06:1:0:3C8A:794E (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]