Talk:Sudan Liberation Movement/Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPOV?[edit]

I just added a NPOV template--sorry, I forgot to log in first, so it's under my current IP address. Take a look at the twelve edits by User:TharooBurma today. I haven't looked through it all, but at first glance these edits appear to have wiped the article clean of any criticism of SLM, replacing discussion of controversy with a mention of an "impeccable" record. Tophtucker (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank for your comment. I have replaced my initial wording by a more cautious "SLA claims it has always limited its action to military targets, and its human right record looks unquestioned". Please advise whether you find any indication of the contrary, because I could not after comprehensive researches. TharooBurma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharooBurma (talkcontribs) 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tophtucker, I understand your concern but if you don't have any specifi critic about my contribution, why raise/maintain a NPOV? Like I said, nobody have ever challenged the SLM's human rignt record (apart from the govenement, of course), so why create a ungrounded doubt? Thank you in advance. TharooB —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharooBurma (talkcontribs) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Tophtucker, more than 3 weeks after you have shed doubt over my contribution, you haven't brought any argument. I'd like to add that the previous editions were full of patent lies about the SLM, and nobody (not even you) was affended then. I think that is unfair, to say the least. What is the process to remove thr whole "neutrality check" i⛠f you don't have any fact to bring?

The problem is statements like the following: "The SLM still tried to remain peaceful for 10 years, until Khartoum’s constant persecution brought it into open armed rebellion." Without a citation from a neutral source, it's violating NPOV. 128.252.206.9 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's go through this statement by statement:
  • The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army or (Arabic: حركة تحرير السودانḥarakat taḥrīr as-Sūdan) (abbreviated as either SLM or SLA) is a nation-wide, plural, multi – ethnic, secular Sudanese opposition party, which is supported by millions of people in Sudan.
I will generously state that this passage is merely unsourced.
  • Its objective is the creation of a free, secular, democratic State in Sudan, based on equal civil rights, the rule of law, and market economy.
Really? Says who? Not the government in Khartoum or its supporters, I'd bet. POV, controversial, and unsourced.
  • Despite the chaos of the current situation and years of political repression, the SLM says it is on the rise and supported by millions people in Sudan.
Citation needed; controversial passage.
  • Abdul Wahid al Nur and 17 other men and women created the SLM at the University of Khartoum in June 1992.
Citation needed.
  • He immediately resumed the war against the SPLM (South Sudan) and called for jihad against inhabitants of Mount Nubba, which resulted in the massacre of about 500,000 persons.
Uncited, bordering on pov-pushing.
  • The SLM was created in reaction to the increasingly violent, divisive, and forcefully arabo-islamist dictatorship of General Al-Bashir.
POV, to put it mildly.
  • The SLM scored immediate political successes in the only forum where elections were still organized: the Universities; but it was left with little political space as no national election was ever organized.
Citation needed.
  • The SLM still tried to remain peaceful for 10 years, until Khartoum’s constant persecution brought it into open armed rebellion.
POV.
  • ==Defensive Struggle in Darfur 2001-2004==
Even the title of this section is POV-pushing.
  • The military wing of the SLM, the Sudan Liberation Army, was created in 2001 as a defensive step.
Citation needed; POV.
  • SLA operations began in Darfur, where loose resistance groups were already trying to protect the civilian population against the regular raids that governmental troops and state-supported Arab tribes had been carrying out since the 1980’s.
Citation needed.
  • SLA claims it has always limited its action to military targets, and its human right record looks unquestioned.
Weasel words ("looks" unquestioned?), pov, and unsourced.
  • At first, the operations of the SLA were quite successful, and they even managed to seize key positions.
Citation needed.
  • But Khartoum’s regime reacted with the brutality that the whole world now knows,
You have got to be kidding me if you think this is NPOV.
  • killing up to 400,000 people and forcing over 2 millions to flee the country or live in camps.
Citation needed.
  • To oppose a very implausible deniability, and because governmental military–with the exception of aircrafts and helicopters bought thank to Russian and Chinese money-, is rather weak, most of the killing was carried out by proxy, i.e local Arab tribes (the infamous Janjawids).
Take your pick: POV, OR, unsourced.
  • Since 2006, the military branch of the SLM retreated in defensive positions and has been mostly dormant.
Citation needed.
  • He finally succeeded to reach Paris, France in 2007 where he has found a strong support among the civil society, if not the government.
Citation needed.
  • He has refused categorically the asylum he was proposed, and vowed to pursue his struggle.
Citation needed. Mildly POV.
  • Nur is in constant touch with the SLM/A leaders in Sudan , and his political capital among the populations is intact. The SLM has currently engaged in a process of reorganization, both in Sudan and abroad.
Citation needed.
This article, as it is written now, would make a great magazine article or news analysis, but it's just not working as an encyclopedia article, which must be understood by readers to narrate facts and present opinions, always sparingly, as what they are and for what they're worth. I think the article is well-structured and has great potential but as it is now is a serious mess of sourceless statements and POV analysis. Let's try to clean it up. --Hiddekel (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

All my data are based on numerous interviews wih Sudanese in exile. You won't find those data neither in Sudanese newspapers (they are controled by the regime) no in Westerne papers (foreign journalists cannot work in Sudan). Then who this article should quote to satisfy you? And who gets to decide what SLM is? Again, not information written is the article you question has been challenged so far. TharroBurma

I've just reinstated the NPOV templates. Per Wikipedia guidelines they should remain as long as there is a disagreement. TharroBurma, to answer your question from above, there is not a "process" to remove that templates. They should be removed once there is a consensus that the article represents a neutral point of view. The NPOV is not meant as a personal attack, it indicates that some editors think that it should be more balanced. Remember also that NPOV is not necessarily about correctness. Even if an article has every fact right and is properly sourced, it can still be POV - for example when one viewpoint is omitted from the article. (This means that an NPOV tag does not necessarily mean the facts must be incorrect).
On the verifiability: This article needs to cite verifiable sources for it's claims. I don't think that they will be so hard to find. Interviews with exiles can be used as sources, but only if they are published in a reliable source (such as a newspaper). Research done by a Wikipedia editor is not allowed as a source, unless it's published elsewhere. The WP:V cannot be waived.
Let me say that I'm not an expert on the subject, but I saw that this needs improvement. I'm willing lend you guys a hand in bringing the article up to Wikipedia standards. While I will probably not be able to contribute that much at this point, I'll keep an eye out for the quality of this article and for the discussion.
Just one last note: Please remember that you should never modify anything on this talk page that you haven't written yourself. And even in this case, you should probably not modify stuff to which other people have already responded. Remember to sign your posts with four tilde ~ signs. Averell (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr God, When Your Higness will have decided what is the Truth on the subject, please let us poor human know, OK? And FYI, I haven't removed anything, so I don't know what you are insinuating. I am really wondering whether you have a dog on the fight. and why you are tryng to shed suspicion on a movement which has been persecuted for over 5 years. Is Wikipedia a mere compilation of articles? I am not sure. WHo decided that every information must have been previously quoted in an article? And which outlets are considered reliable by your Highness? Again, I don't understand your agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharooBurma (talkcontribs) 16:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I may have sounded condescending, but be assured that I'm neither looking for a "dogfight" nor have any other agenda than the quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the neutral point of view were not invented by me, but by the Wikipedia community. They are core guidelines (just click the links to find out more). The linked pages will also explain which sources are generally considered reliable or not. As for what Wikipedia is, it's an Encyclopedia which means, among other things that it's not a soap box or advocacy site. Averell (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Even more condescending: who are you to deliver ruling about the quality of an article? to decide when an opinion is neutral or not? Why don't you propose your vision of the topic, with FACTS and DATES? We will see whether you are either naive, incredibly arrogant or merely protecting Khartoum. Are you suggesting that a balanced account of what has happened in Darfur should read that the murderers and the victims are equally responsible? Is describing an opposition movement which fight against a military dictature advocacy or soap box? You are not serious. So please, unless you have facts to bring to that article, please stop tryng to undermine its credibility by ungrounded remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharooBurma (talkcontribs) 18:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Just want to chime in here, this entry is clearly written as a POV article and with no sources. How can you honestly read this statement "The SLM still tried to remain peaceful for 10 years, until Khartoum’s constant persecution brought it into open armed rebellion." and not see that this is 100% biased? If it was a quote from a member of the SLM then you can use it, but to just use that sentence as fact is not be allowed. And FYI, TharooBurma, I am very anti the Sudanese government and I sympathize with your stance on the SLM but that's not an excuse for writing a biased article. Manifestdestiny (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I will just try to second those who have tried to calm the debate here. The rules for Wikipedia are there for good reason, people coming here are hoping to learn more about the conflict, and those who have some deeper understanding of the issue on the basis of interviews, should try to find sources for their information so that others can come and learn the facts of what's happening, I understand that the depth of knowledge that one may derive from first-hand sources may be difficult to duplicate from other sources, but it's important that people who come here know where the facts are coming from. Also, don't be too suspicious of people, like myself, who come by and try to make suggestions about the article, Wikipedia is a cooperative venture, and there are people who are motivated by nothing other than making sure it lives up to its own promise! Thanks for contributing your expertise, and for continuing to improve wikipedia!Lemonlaug (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand what allows you, Manifestdestiny, to declare with authority that writing "The SLM still tried to remain peaceful for 10 years, until Khartoum’s constant persecution brought it into open armed rebellion" is a 100% biased statement. It is simply the truth. Also no journalist has writtend it, nobody has said otherwise. Do you bring facts that show otherwise? I agree that most wikipedia articles are full of quotes, especially for topics which are well covered, but I don't think that ALL FACTS are documented. I would appreciate contributions, with facts and comments, but no self-appointed judges sayning" bring me the evidence and then I will lift you POV sanction". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharooBurma (talkcontribs) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page to learn about its subject but its contents seem so absurd that I couldn't take any of it as credible. Even if its contents were somehow near true, it still needs to be entirely rewritten for tone issues. --Nogburt (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite[edit]

Since Nogburt has chosen to delete all of the content except the lead sentence; the article has to be rebuilt using reliable sources. I have made a first stab at that. Editor Hiddekel may say that The SLM was created in reaction to the increasingly violent, divisive, and forcefully arabo-islamist dictatorship of General Al-Bashir. is POV, but it appears to be substantiated by reliable sources. Does it make it any better to phrase it as feelings of increased marginalization or as a perception of an increasingly violent, divisive, and forcefully arabo-islamist dictatorship? --Bejnar (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)