Talk:War in Darfur

Renaming this article

I was thinking about renaming this article as the Darfur Genocide. It is obvious that this is a genocide. As follows are a few research tidbits...

3. Genocide  "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Article 2 of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.  “and systematically murdered, tortured, and raped hundreds of thousands of Darfurians.” (savedarfur.org)  “killing 350,000 to 400,000 people in 29 months by means of violence, malnutrition, and disease in the first genocidal rampage of the 21st century.” (sudantribune.com)  “U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the actions of the Sudanese government and its proxies, the Jingaweit militias, against the people of Darfur to be genocide.” …"a consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities (killings, rapes, burning of villages) committed by Jingaweit and government forces against non-Arab villagers" from which "we concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the Jingaweit bear responsibility -- and genocide may still be occurring." (America.gov)  “and that Government forces and allied militia had committed widespread and consistent war crimes and crimes against humanity including murder, torture, mass rape, summary executions and arbitrary detention.” (wikipedia, from UN) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.24.179 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that it is Genocide there are many that dispute that fact and it is better to leave the title as is for now. A redirect of Darfur Genocide seems more appropriate at this time (as it is now).

While the human rights abuses in Darfur by the government are indeed atrocious, "genocide" has a very precise legal definition under the Genocide Convention of 1948. The question of genocide comes down to whether or not the Khartoum government intends to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." [1] Their actions appear to be a concerted effort (without regard for the lives of civillians) to break the back of an insurgency actively fighting to end their rule of the region, not neccesarily to eliminate Darfurians persé. The issue, however, is open to much debate. - 75.50.118.172 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing of China as a belligerent

The role of a belligerent is too narrow to include arms suppliers to either side with China supplying arms to the Sudanese government and it's associated militias. I'm not sure if this is vandalism or not. It would be overzealous to presume that without the involvement of it's own military, China is a belligerent in the conflict. By that extension, most of the developed world would be involved in every conflict in the world with them supplying arms sometimes to both sides. As mentioned in the article, China's oil companies are in Sudan and the government of China is doling out incentives to the government of Sudan so that they(the oil companies of china) get the oilfields. Thus I would suggest moving China's name to some other category like listing them under arms suppliers or something.Abhishekmathur (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with u. Russia is also listed to be a main arm supplier, and some figures showed there're more Russian weapons than Chinese. Also, many weapons are sold before the genocide, so it's unfair to blame the arm supplier when he didn't know what's for. Derekjoe (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Derekjoe

I added a reference to recent arms supply accusations with a solid reference to the BBC Panorama: China's Secret War. The reference is OK but could actually do with a better template which I couldn't find. Like when it was broadcast ( BBC1 N West 12:05am-12:35am (30 minutes) Fri 18 Jul ) and better links. I included a news article link because it's a perma link. The episode is on BBC iPlayer but only until Sunday. There may be a more permanent article on the Panorama webpage but I couldn't see it DJ Barney (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the References

I'm trying to read the article, but the references are broken at 43.

I don't yet know how, but I'll come back and try to fix them when I do.

FairViewpoint (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

genocide in first sentence

I have removed

(called the Darfur Genocide by the United States government (Transcript of BBC interview with President George W. Bush "Mr. Bush: ...You know, I read - did call it (SOUND GLITCH) genocide, and I think we're the only nation that has done so... "))

as it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. One could just as easily place in those brackets

(The UN has stated it is not genocide)

There is a further paragraph and half about the genocide in the lead where it belongs as an analysis of the events after the facts. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

fsadfa

I don't get why chinese people other than me get hyped up over criticisms of its involvement in Sudan, its not like these darfur guys are yelling free tibet which would be in chinese internal affairs. we should stay in east africa cuz thats the traditional sphere of influence for china —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.164.234 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a talk page to discuss improvements of this article, not your views on the matter. Please take your opinions to a blog or something. -- Reaper X 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)