Talk:Second Sudanese Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Africa / Sudan (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sudan (marked as Top-importance).

Most deadly conflict - not true[edit]

It says it is the most deadly conflict since WWII. This is no longer the case. The reference goes to page written in 2001, and it may have been true then. However, now the most deadly conflict since WWII is the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo which has claimed the lives of over 5,000,00 people (from a widely cited report by the IRC). This statistic is used widely in academic and non academic sources and is easy to find on the internet. Time to update this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


I reverted some posts that seemed to just have been added for bias, things like "This article is biased and untrue" and "SPLA was heavily supported by western countries and Christian groups". There was no references, just the text. If someone wants to revert my changes with references, fine by me. -- (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


I cannot see why "Outbreak" is not a sutible heading; indeed I think it sums up nicley the ideas of the paragraph. I do agree, however, that the chronology is confusing- it is very hard to read it and understand. A timeline outlining the basics of the war would be a welcome feature.

--User:CrucialCoconuts/CrucialCoconuts 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Early discussion[edit]

The section under the heading "Outbreak" has some problems with chronology; the first two paragraphs need to be disentangled. Also, why is "Outbreak" an appropriate heading?

--babbage 13:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right. It is confused. Hopefully we can sort that out. Why is "outbreak" not an appropriate heading? If you can think of a better one, feel free to put it in.

Peregrine981 03:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Reading the content of this article, and considering the lack of an article on the first Sudanese civil war, I think it would be better if we retitled the article Sudanese Civil War. This would make the article better because it would be more holistic. If that article approached size limits we could think again about splitting the articles. :ChrisG 18:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Allright, if you like the idea. I suppose it makes sense considering the lack of expertise on the area available on Wikipedia.
Peregrine981 02:12, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Lack of expertise shouldn't mean we ignore facts. The first Sudanese civil war can be a candidate of WP:Bias if necessary - Xed 02:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the current revision, the last three paragraphs of the section "Background and causes" and the start of "Outbreak" are still a bit confused. The narrative doesn't flow smoothly. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

And the tail end of "Outbreak" cuts off mid-sentence. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:20, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) And that fragment seems identical to the beginning of "1985-1991". -- Jmabel | Talk 09:25, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

What can possibly be meant by, "The civil war was particularly divisive (see “Civil Strife” below)." No such section, and it should go without saying that war is divisive. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've addressed the cut off sentence and "divisive" problem. The divisive sentence was redundant, and the repeating sentence is an artifact of cut and paste from "History of Sudan". The flow problems result from being cut and paste from that article, which was in its own turn cut and pasted from the U.S. Dept of State. Since then many minor revisions and additions have been made, making it slightly convoluted. Hopefully we can slowly clean it up. Peregrine981 11:18, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I just want to know how the statement "Due to the North's military superiority, most of southern Sudan was decimated and the rebels achieved little.", can be made. They have regional autonomy and a scheduled referendum in 2011 on possible independence. Sounds to me like the rebels achieved their aims. Diggerjohn111 23:25 (UTC)

Copyright problem?[edit]

The last paragraph on this website is copyrighted. [1] (It starts with "In August 1991, internal dissention")

The second paragraph under Conduct of the war: 1991-2001 has the first sentence of the copyrighted paragraph word for word. In the fourth paragraph under the same title the rest of the copyrighted paragraph can be found. The fourth paragraph begins with "In September 1992, William Nyon Bany"

I was wondering if we have permission from or if I am wrong. Also other parts of our article is copied from the same website.

I wasn't sure who to ask about this or what to do so I posted it here.NeoJustin 17:01 Nov. 14, 2004 (UTC)

I got that text from History of Sudan. Looking back I see that User:Stan Shebs got it from the U.S. department of State website. [2] I think that clears us of any copyright violation, although it is somewhat dismaying for the quality of this article, as it now seems that about 75-80% is lifted straight from the US government. Peregrine981 03:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


"This has infuriated many groups…": Are you saying that the Borgen project has infuriated these groups? Or what? On a second read, I suspect that is not what you mean. Could you reword this more clearly, and also with some thought as to what is relevant to an article on an African war, not one on U.S. politics? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment[edit]

A very nice article, long, detailed, and with pictures, maps, and infobox. Needs references though. LordAmeth 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1002 agreement and the Darfur conflict?[edit]

From the article:

The agreement reached during this war in 2002 is also one of the causes of the Darfur conflict.

Should "2002" be replaced with "2005" or was there some agreement in 2002 that our article glosses over? AxelBoldt 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The result of the conflict[edit]

Not sure about the line "the rebels achieved little" in relation to the outcome of the conflict. The CPA provisions for power and wealth sharing, national elections, and determination that the people of Southern Sudan have the right to self determination and referendum on secession, are all substantial gains for the south. The line should be removed as it is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I kind of agree. The idea also seems to be the peace agreement accomplished nothing, except cause fighting in Darfur, and I don't think that's fair at all.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this conflict can be considered a SPLA victory, since the rebels achieved their main aims of gaining independence for the South. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Darfur has next to nothing to do with this war. The Darfur question is wholly a northern affair, one that by chance, occured after this conflict. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


I cannot see why "Outbreak" is not a sutible heading; indeed I think it sums up nicley the ideas of the paragraph. I do agree, however, that the chronology is confusing- it is very hard to read it and understand. A timeline outlining the basics of the war would be a welcome feature.

--User:CrucialCoconuts/CrucialCoconuts 8 April 2010 (UTC)


SPLA-Nasir, SSLM and Anyanya II were all predominantly Nuer collaborationist militia (read their respective articles), it doesn't make much sense to keep them on the anti-government side of combatants. I'm not sure whether to move them on the pro-government side or give them their own area. They behaved much in the same way the Čhetniks did during the Yugoslav front of WWII, only difference is that the Čhetniks actually fought against the Nazis and Ustaša up until a point.

N.B. I removed the flag from Anyanya II because it was the flag of Anyanya I. Anyanya II has no reported iconography. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)