Jump to content

Talk:Sudanese civil war (2023–present)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 15 April 2023

MERGED TO OTHER ARTICLE
Merged to existing article 2023 Sudan clashes. "Clashes" is what all RS are calling it, and I didn't find this article until now because it wasn't the one linked from 2023 in Sudan or 2019–2026 Sudanese transition to democracy. So there was another parallel article going. I kept most of the text from this one in the merge, nobody has to worry about their work being gone. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2023 Sudanese Armed Forces-Rapid Support Forces confrontation → 2023 Sudanese coup d'état attempt – RSF attempted to took over the power. Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait. I think that the name will need to be decided when the events end or take on the clear nature of a coup / clashes / war / etc PLATEL (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. TheWhiterCloud (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Wait. I would wait until the end of the day in Sudan. Anything could happen Braganza (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we need to wait The 64 Squares (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we need to wait and see if this confrontation becomes something big, like a full out civil war, the SAD forces are already gaining a lot of ground 2601:183:4081:FEA0:EC97:ADB4:DE18:6B7E (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait. The RSF and the SAF and their leaders have been cooperating in opposing the massive civilian resistance in Sudan since December 2018, so while this could be something like an attempt at a "palace coup", it could also be interpreted as the de facto group in power trying to remove the unwanted part of the alliance, so a "strengthening of the government" as opposed to an "overthrow of the government". The current title is long, but it's accurate and neutral. We'll soon know which armed group takes/retains control, and we'll also know the reaction of the civilian population, which has shown incredible stamina in civil disobedience, and doesn't want any military government at all - whichever military group has power will have to live with continued civil disobedience, which might also contribute to how the event should be titled. Boud (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Su-35 0r MiG sightings over Sudan and Blinken Statements

Hello. Do you all suggest we add the plane sightings over Khartoum or are they not notable enough to be included. Also, should I add in statements made by Anthony Blinken in Hanoi? TheWhiterCloud (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well there have been reports of airstrikes, not sure if its related to the sightings though The 64 Squares (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Unofficial move request

Didn't want to WP:RM this because the article is unstable, but isn't 2023 Sudan clashes a more WP:CONCISE title? 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess, but I think it would be better to keep it to this until things (hopefully) settle down. TheWhiterCloud (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How do you format multiple reactions from different people from the same state?

Do you do it in bullet points or all in one paragraph? The 64 Squares (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's alright to have it as one paragraph because they will all usually be part of the same group or have similar opinions. Using too many bullet points might get a bit confusing in my opinion. TheWhiterCloud (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hemedti

@PLATEL: Hemedti is by far the more common name of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. see here: Better known by the nickname "Hemedti", Gen Dagalo was named deputy chairman of the Transitional Military Council that took over after the army removed Mr Al Bashir... 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is old and google-based, but see also Talk:Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo#Which transliteration should be the default? (Apparently the word should transcription, not transliteration.) Boud (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Twinky

where does this name come from? doesnt seem accurate? 217.102.250.25 (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Re-add more International and Domestic reactions

I am not sure if it is not going to be "notable enough", but I think that having reactions from different sides within Sudan and outside Sudan could help the reader understand some of the context behind the events happening, and a lot of other pages relating to Sudan has them too such as the Sudanese Revolution or 2019 Sudanese coup d'état. TheWhiterCloud (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing Sudan revolutionary front

The Sudan revolutionary front doesn't control any territory there was a peace agreement signed between the government and the Sudanese revolutionary front in 2020. DitorWiki (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Move reversion.

@25stargeneral, may you please explain more about why using the demonym in the title is not appropriate? It seems more grammatically correct to me. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A demonym is a term used to refer to groups of people in relation to a place. It is not used to identify the place itself. These kinds of moves have always ended up being reverted on those grounds. 2021 Myanmar coup d'état was originally called 2021 Burmese coup d'état. A battle or a coup does not have an ethnicity or nationality. Rather, the title refers to the location where the event took place. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Since you left out "war", would that mean an article like the American Revolutionary War would be an exception due it being a war, even though it uses a demonym? - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 22:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
That is a common term established by reliable sources, and it does refer to the American people in that case. This isn't a popular revolution of the Sudanese people. That took place in the Sudanese Revolution. We're talking about clashes within the military. The Sudanese people as a whole don't have much to do with it. 25stargeneral (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
That makes way more sense. Thank you very much. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 22:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Part of

I think there should be rather a "Sudanese Crisis (2018–)" article that this article being part of "Sudanese transition to democracy" Braganza (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Can this be called third Sudanese civil war ? 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:249E:B5AB:FF65:E107 (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

i mean rather about the coups & revolution since 2018 Braganza (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah but the figthing is not just a coup this a full on civil war 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:249E:B5AB:FF65:E107 (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

How do we define a coup over a civil war on Wikipedia?

I am asking this as I feel like this may drag on for a bit, and in case someone proposes a move to a coup or civil war. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 11:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources, most of which are currently describing the fighting as clashes. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Abbreviation hovers

The usage of {{Abbreviation}} for RSF seems excessive for every usage of "RSF". The parenthetical "Rapid Support Forces (RSF)" should suffice in the lead paragraph.

SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces) hasn't been named in the lead paragraph, so some spare usage for that seems fine. 93 (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I frankly added them because I confused the two but feel free to reduce thier frequency, I may over did it FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The issue with the abbreviation SAF is that the abbreviation could be used for both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Sudanese Air Force which could cause unnecessary confusion but I am in favour of reducing the frequency of {{Abbreviation}} in reference to the Rapid Support Forces. FusionSub (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I am now sometimes confusing the SAF with the Sudanese Air Force. Maybe we could use "government forces" instead. Borgenland (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Trivial information and double writing of material

@FuzzyMagma: I did not remove "information abou assult on the ambassador and us convey". I moved it to a different section. I have also removed information about closure of airspace because it is already included. I do not have to make small and incremental edits at all. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. Ecrusized (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

How the US convey attack is a casualty if there is no casualty?
and it’s meaningless to revert your edit before this discussion is concluded because it will just become an edit war. Respect this discussion and be patient.
the timeline section is for the events which should include both ambassadors incidents. The other events in the timeline does not happen in a vacuum there is also people being killed or injured during them but they still stay there. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't even understand what you're trying to say. I simply moved the sentence about the attack on US envoy to foreign casualties section. Ecrusized (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
It’s not a casualty if no one is injured. What word you don’t understand. Do you understand what casualties mean? FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No longer clashes, now conflict

If you google “sudan conflict” you’ll see many sources that call this conflict, so why can’t we move to 2023 Sudan conflict then? like 2008 Lebanon conflict 88.240.249.213 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I've only seen 4 articles refer to it as such, maybe in a week or 2 from now there will be enough to confidently move the article. FusionSub (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The current name minimizes the size of what's going on. There are pitched battles ongoing all over the country. Tons of articles call this a "conflict" see here for example [1], [2], [3] some even go so far to say that it is a war or civil war.XavierGreen (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW. Not described as such by any RS yet, not moved . (non-admin closure) Ecrusized (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Sudan clashes → Third Sudanese Civil War – Technically, the crisis is escalating into a civil war (Probably it is right now). I mean, residential buildings are being bombed and the casualties number is increasing significally. However, we will wait for a bit until we change to this title. Just like in february and march 2011, when the Libyan War was called Libyan uprising and was changed to Libyan Civil War afterwards also in march 2011. TankDude2000 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll change it if and when multiple RS report it as a war. Bremps! 16:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I would look to the discussion right above this one on the talk page, once reliable sources begin to refer to it as such we will follow that. Yeoutie (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Only sources I've seen that come close only say it's approaching civil war, but haven't found any that call it one yet. This certainly isn't enough to justify changing the article title. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
We’ll rename it ONLY if the situation escalates. 82.76.85.110 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do we really need a map right now?

There's frustratingly little information on who controls what in the country, so I think putting a map in the infobox is a bit premature. We could add a map that shows areas of major fighting though Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the map should be kept C4rstv0 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, a map is needed in any sort of conflict especially this one NYMan6 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Map

For people with red-green weakness, the map is not to be used. Yunesxy (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Flag salad "Reactions" section

As many of you know, most editors despise the list-formatted "Reactions" section, especially the flag icons. This section should be converted into prose--not a bulleted list. Sourcing should not be primary, such as tweets. Abductive (reasoning) 21:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It was prose when I wrote it. But there are some editors who really love the flags, and I've learned it's futile to fight it. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not futile, they are violating a number of guidelines and policies. Abductive (reasoning) 00:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course, I agree with you. But flags tend to stay from the overwhelming volume of edits adding them in. Thus, in the past, efforts to remove them have indeed been futile. I hope you may succeed where others have failed. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Good idea, we'll take them to ANI for vandalism. Abductive (reasoning) 07:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
asking out of confusion: how is it vandalism exactly? Ballads2110 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it a civil war

Can this already be a civil war 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:A89F:9588:C1BC:A9C5 (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

There will need to be at least multiple reliable sources referring to this conflict as a civil war before these changes can be implemented. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
From your opinion doesn’t this look like a civil war 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:A89F:9588:C1BC:A9C5 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
We need multiple reliable sources to change it. Please refer to previous discussions for information on the current consensus. FusionSub (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Only reliable sources I could previously find:
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/19/sudan-conflict-generals-burhan-hamdan-hemeti-rsf/] it states how both generals have plunged the country into a "civil war".
That's our best source as of right now to change it to civil war.
The most I think we could do is to switch it to "2023 Sudanese war" as several source such as
CBS News:
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sudan-war-fighting-2023-crisis/]
Have referred to this as a ongoing war, instead of conflict or clashes.
NYMan6 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Egyptian and Libyan involvement

There doesn’t seem to be enough adequate sources to mention them as belligerents. Aside from the claims of a RSF commander and Cameron Hudson (who is generally considered unreliable and is imo nothing more than a journalist) there isn’t any evidence that Egypt is involved. That is a very big claim to make. There also is much evidence that the LNA is supporting the RSF aside from that single article. محرر البوق (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This is it clearly a Civil War from the start

Let’s be honest, the fighting was too intense for just being a coup d'é·tat plus the deaths are skyrocketing and the fighting is already a start of a Civil War so I think changing this article to the third Sudanese Civil War makes much sense, and it’s not wait for like months to just call it. This was a clearly a Civil War from the start. 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:F450:4765:4F5D:96BD (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We need to wait for reliable sources to start calling it a civil war. I'd give it a week.©Geni (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
We should wait, however, I believe that this is a civil war. It seems like that is becoming clearer by the minute. IGotAPHD (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

Requesting addition of international reaction from Indonesia as provided by following news https://en.tempo.co/read/1717313/indonesia-aims-to-evacuate-citizens-in-conflict-stricken-sudan Muhammad Erril (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Title page

Since most users agreed, shall we close the discussion and move the page? TankDude2000 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Described as a conflict by RS. Overwhelming support in discussion, moved . (non-admin closure) Ecrusized (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Sudan clashes → 2023 Sudan conflict – Reliable sources have little consensus on what to call the ongoing situation in Sudan, but it is clear at this point that it is more advanced than merely "clashes"; the RSF have taken over large swaths of Sudan. I think it is reasonable to use 2023 Sudan conflict, as it describes the conflict more intensely, but does not label it as a "war" or "civil war," as neither have enough consensus. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

There is lack of evidence that RFS have fully controlled Nyala city in Darfur 37.40.150.151 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: CNN is still calling it clashes as of today, so I disagree that "it is clear at this point that it is more advanced". I also do not believe that word implies a lack of seriousness. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly most sources call it a conflict now, as there is territorial control involved now. Doesn’t need much explanation. 88.240.249.213 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: not neccesary, still not enough RS calling it a conflict, and I also do not belive that "clashes" is any less serious than "conflict". Based on the sources, images and videos from the ground, it does indeed look like it's clashes. On top of that, "conflict" is a more general term. We should wait on more RS to call it a war, and then move it. C4rstv0 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Maybe Oppose: If these really were clashes, they would have lasted a few days, with minimal civilian deaths and not large battles as we have seen here, NBC, BBC, The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian are all reported this as the "Sudan conflict" these are very reliable sources that can help us rename the article, I think we can rename these "clashes" at least a "war" currently. Adding on: A clash like the Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan ones usually lasted only one day or a few hours, clashes are very small and not something that is in only one region but across most, all or part of the country
Links:
  1. Sudan conflict: Residents flee capital Khartoum as fighting continues
  2. Sudan conflict: No water, no light as fighting rages on
  3. Sudan conflict: why is there fighting and what is at stake in the region?
  4. Sudan conflict: 'We're expecting to get shot at any time,' doctor says
  5. Sudan conflict: US conducts 'prudent planning' as violence escalates
  6. Sudan Conflict Continues Despite Ceasefire Announcement
  7. Sudan conflict pitches military leaders into struggle for control
NYMan6 (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: As per above, 'clashes' indicate short but intense fighting usually localized to only a few regions close to each other. Since this has erupted both sides have used sustained heavy weaponry, including fighter aircraft and has been on-going in several regions throughout the country. I wouldn't change it immediately, but I would give it a week, two weeks tops before changing it. If the fighting fizzles out in the coming days keep it as clashes, but if it it goes any longer than 2-weeks definitely change to 'conflict' and potentially a new civil war. Nath1991 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Sources now name the crisis as a conflict. 82.76.85.110 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Weak Support conflict has definitely gone far enough and quite a few sources refer to it as a conflict however, my weak support is that most people still refer to it as clashes due to it being so new still. FusionSub (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Support: Sadly, This is clearly becoming a conflict if it isn't already a conflict. This isn't a handful of clashes. There was a six-day war between the Jews and Arabs and even shorter wars than that. If they are a war, this has to be a war too. I don't know what to call this war though. IGotAPHD (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Support The reason clashes isn't sufficient is because it's not just fighting with the goal of small territorial gains, like the 2022 Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan clashes, but instead the consequences of one side winning is the destruction of the other side, as the RSF is going to be dissolved if they lose and the military will lose control of the country if they lose. I think this checks all the boxes to be called a civil war, but until more sources say so it should be conflict. SuperDuperBoy (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Support: At this point clashes is becoming a lighter term. This is an armed and organized conflict, so it should be named as such. Channel719 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2023 (EST)
Support: This has lasted way too long to be considered a "clash" anymore. Venezuelaisthenewrome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venezeualeisthenewrome (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I am obviously not allowed to move the page considering that I started the request, but I do believe that there is now consensus GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Question If it's moved, should it be titled 2023 Sudan conflict or 2023 Sudanese conflict? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm betting that sooner or later this will turn into a civil war, sources such as the BBC are calling it a conflict - so I believe it's best to move the page from clashes to conflict right now. There's probably gonna be a discussion sooner or later to debate moving this from conflict to civil war if that happens, hopefully not but we'll see. Ballads2110 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statements from warring generals

Burhan and Dagalo have been making statements regarding the political situation. Hope someone can find a way to integrate them properly in this article since I'm not sure where to put them and I don't think the Reaction section is a good place to put them. Borgenland (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023

Grammatical error in the Disinformation tab. Change "On 14 April, the official SAF page published a video it said was for operations carried out by the Sudanese Air Force against the RSF." to "On 14 April, the official SAF page published a video it said was of operations carried out by the Sudanese Air Force against the RSF.". TextbookRPHS (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 17:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ethiopian involvement

The source indicating that Ethiopia is supporting the RSF is just an accusation and has little to no evidence. Alleging someone is supporting someone isn't enough to be accurate. It should be removed or replaced with better sources at least. I do expect Ethiopia and especially Eritrea to lean towards the RSF because of their tensions with Sudan and Egypt.

In a nutshell, remove Ethiopia on RSF's side or keep it and replace it with better sources. IGotAPHD (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove it, Ethiopia has only made claims to support the RSF, no actual evidence is preset. Channel719 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Scratch that, sources say Ethiopians are now actually invading Sudan to provide support, so Ethiopian Support is confirmed. Channel719 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Channel719 what are these sources? I'd like to read up on them. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@Channel719@L'Mainerque Have you found addition sources about their involvement yet? محرر البوق (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I used the current link that's provided next to Ethiopia which states that Sudanese Armed Forces repelled Ethiopian incursions, while Ethiopia denies the claims. In my opinion I'd like to put Russian and Ethiopian Interference as (alleged) since there is still information coming in that is not yet confirmed. Channel719 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. There just isn’t enough sources to justify its conclusion. The claim does not seem to have any evidence at the moment. محرر البوق (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed Ethiopia from the Infobox due to a lack of evidence and one side's claim. (WP:NPOV) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Flag

The rapid support forces and the Sudanese armed forces have there own flag which should be inserted other than the Sudanese flag DitorWiki (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Merowe

Just to clarify, is it Merowe, Merwi, Marwi or Marawi? And there should be a standard name for that throughout the article. Borgenland (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Haven't heard of any other source calling it anything other then Merowe. محرر البوق (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
There were Arabic language sources (including an RSF pub) calling it Marawi/Marwi and I do get confused because when I listen to Arab broadcasts it does sound differentBorgenland (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Probably because of the romanization of Arabic as the English script doesn’t have as many letters as the Arabic script, so it can get messy and confusing real quick. But from what I’m seeing most sources address it as Merowe, I guess you can add “also known as Marawi or Marwi” into its article if you have the links to those sources. محرر البوق (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Borgenland
It's currently Merowe, but changed in the Arabic languages to Marawi or Marwi and romanized as Merwi and Merowe, but the official name is Merowe.
NYMan6 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your clarifications! Borgenland (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

To confuse you a little bit more: there are two locations of this name in the Sudan: (1)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mero%C3%AB مرواه or مروي (2)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merowe,_Sudan مروي number (1) is 200 km north-east of Khartoum number (2) is 220 km north of Khartoum at the Merowe dam and has an airport called Merowe airport Both are close to the river Nile. If the Egyptian soldiers would have been taken captive in (1), it would be of interest in regard of Ethiopia. If in (2), there is a direct train connection to Wadi Halfa and Egypt. The Arabic name of both locations is the same, so it would be important to make clear which one is meant. --2A00:20:C00F:32A:19C3:8F6C:4E5C:EF56 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

you're gonna make the guy lost LOL balladsone 04:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Map

Does anyone familiar with the situation know how accurate is the map presented in the infobox or if it's covered by RS? Elserbio00 (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Like other conflict maps, reliable sources support edits to its module (formerly the Commons file itself before one was created) from which a template composed of icons representing population centers/infrastructure is used to determine territorial control. If you find the map's reliability questionable, verifiable edits should be made to that module or proposed on the map's talk page. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Intro

Given the way this conflict has developed since April 15, should the claims of control on April 15 still be in the intro? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blaylockjam10 it shouldn’t. I think the lead need some work. Please give it a try FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wagner and Libyan Support

The Libyan general Haftar denied supporting the RSF, as has Wagner. As is said in the article in the section about foreign involvement. Shouldn't the wikibox reflect this? Genabab (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Casualties

Please don’t forget the casualties section when you update the death toll on the Introbox. Borgenland (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources for analysis section

Here are some good sources for an analysis section - some parts to improve the background based on what has already happened prior to 15 April; and some for a separate analysis section towards the end, after Disinformation and before the Reactions section, for understanding of the sociological structures in Sudan (military and civilian) and what possibilities are seen (by named sources, either the newspaper or a named individual, not by unnamed "analysts") for how this may evolve or resolve:

Boud (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Boud, these sources are more likely to be used on Battle of Khartoum (2023) as this articles, background already has a small good summary. NYMan6 (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wagner or Russia?

I'm on the opinion that Russia should be used in the belligerents sections of the infobox instead of Wagner. Wagner group is an arm of the Russian government that masquerades as being an independent entity. Ecrusized (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents are the military or a paramilitary not a country, Wagner should be used instead NYMan6 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: User:NYMan6 is a 6 month old account spreading Russian propaganda related to Ukraine. [4], [5]. 19:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Noting that the note authored above was by @Ecrusized. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I was never spreading Russian propaganda @Ecrusized, those were reliable sources never Russian propaganda NYMan6 (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
that's a strong accusation, why is your signature not fully there if you're making such claim? @L'Mainerque had to ping you noting that you were the author - but cool ig. balladsone 03:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ballads2110 I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by "but cool ig." May you elaborate? - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 04:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
ah, i meant it's okay! the ig stands for i guess. balladsone 04:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@L'Mainerque it stands for 'I guess' NYMan6 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@NYMan6 & @Ballads2110 thank you! - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 15:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Disagree. If they are any sources stating that the Russian government is involved, feel free to add it. But as of right now the sources only state Wagner is involved, and they don't mention anything other then that. محرر البوق (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
It really shouldn't be, it can be called a PMC or a "network of mercenaries" but not a direct arm of the Russian government Presidentofyes12 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

United States evacuate embassy

President Biden of USA posted on Twitter at 11:10 PM EST on 22/4/2023 that U.S. military forces conducted operations to extract government personnel from Khartoum. Backed up by multiple international news sources. [1] Spacetaters (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit: NY Times reporting EU diplomats and citizens have started to be evacuated Sunday.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacetaters (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1649974105385361408?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/23/world/sudan-khartoum-fighting-news

Reactions section

It's too big and not formatted in the Wikipedia way. We've reached the point where it's not that informative just putting every single country's and organization's reactions. Not even the Reactions section in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article is that big. Yes, there's a separate article for that, but the main one is clear and concise. There's no need for the article to have "X country: X stated that Sudan is not safe to visit" times hundred. C4rstv0 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Merowe airport

Add it, man. 46.188.173.25 (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Need more information. FusionSub (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
It has a section on the article. Oddballslover (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2023

 :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This move request was closed as not moved by editor Oddballslover at 00:29 on 25 April 2023 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflict – I propose to change the article title from 2023 Sudan conflict to 2023 Sudanese conflict DitorWiki (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll go searching for several like I did last time NYMan6 (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
LINKS:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/21/foreign-policy-news-quiz-sudan-conflict-china-ukraine-spring-offensive/
https://news.yahoo.com/1-american-killed-ongoing-sudanese-164513031.html
https://www.kff.org/news-summary/doctors-in-sudanese-conflict-zone-criticize-unicef-for-lack-of-vaccine-supply-guardian-reports/
I don't see much yet, this is all I could find as of right now NYMan6 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Should we put the Template:Requested move on this discussion? I don't know how to do it without potentially compromising the message of the proposer, and furthermore, is it needed? - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Already done. I initially thought that it was forgotten, but now I do not know if I should revert. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Currently none of the sources that you have listed report this as the 'Sudanese conflict' mainly 'Sudan conflict' just like they use 'Ukraine war' NYMan6 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Its Sudan Conflict like it Vietnam War and Ukraine War Hind242 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not Ukraine war but Russian invasion of Ukraine DitorWiki (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per FuzzyMagma. FusionSub (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

map

the map should be improved + it shows Sudan's claimed borders and does not reflect the disputes Braganza (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well you can edit it of you want. Borysk5 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
It really looks like the same from the day it was added. Are the contents inside the mao even being changed? 420atgm (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Map* 420atgm (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

People with red-green weakness cannot use the map, all provinces look the same. I cannot edit it. --2A00:20:C00F:32A:E597:8837:977C:744C (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I will second this, I am colorblind and the map is almost useless to me. 174.54.170.218 (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW close. Clearly no consensus to move, owing to examples of "civil war" not being the WP:COMMONNAME and a move being too soon. This topic could be returned to in the future if there is a sufficient demonstration that this is regularly described as a third civil war. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Czello (music) 09:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Sudan conflict → Third Sudanese Civil War

According to Fox News and Washington post this as a civil war:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/president-biden-calls-civil-war-sudan-unconscionable-us-embassy-personnel-evacuate https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/04/23/sudan-civil-war-violence-future/ Oddballslover (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Oddballslover: Firstly, Fox News is not a very reliable source when it comes to politics. Secondly, it's much too early. We still have time. We can wait until most reliable sources refer to this conflict as a civil war and then change its title. For now, though, we should wait. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Oddballslover, may you please explain why you close discussions in the future? You closed the previous move discussion without a reason. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 00:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a view on whether the title should be changed, I just wanted to add some context as I researched this a bit. It's much more than Fox News and Washington Post who refer to it as a civil war. I was able to find at least five others in a quick search of Google News and many, many more when searching Google proper. Of varying degrees of reliability. Notably: The Associated Press, The Economist and The Independent all referred to it as a civil war in at least one article/headline. However -- the consensus term does appear to be 'conflict'. Dwarfed by the amount calling it a civil war were those calling it a conflict. Google even seems aware of this as it shows lots of people calling it a conflict when you search for a civil war, thinking that's what you mean. JaHolo (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
There is 12 articles that the site has found of this being called a "civil war". Oddballslover (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure that is accurate. But there are probably literally hundreds who call it a conflict, not a civil war. If and when those numbers reverse themselves, you'd have a stronger case here. JaHolo (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Here's another civil war source https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/horn-africa/sudan/stopping-sudans-descent-full-blown-civil-war and https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/04/20/sudan-is-sliding-towards-civil-war and https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/04/23/sudan-civil-war-violence-future/ and https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/19/sudan-conflict-generals-burhan-hamdan-hemeti-rsf/ and https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/22/sudan-crisis-whats-next-after-one-week-of-deadly-fighting
Is this enough? PalauanReich🗣️ 00:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for finding more sources @PalauanReich. Oddballslover (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
heres even more. this one https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/sudan-war-american-trapped-trillian-clifford-b2325334.html and this one https://m.timesofindia.com/videos/international/explained-what-led-to-the-civil-war-in-sudan-and-who-is-general-dagalo/videoshow/99685007.cms and this one https://nypost.com/2023/04/22/sudan-to-evacuate-foreigners/ and this one https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sudan-war-fighting-2023-crisis/
the hills tag for the sudan conflict article is sudan-civil-war source PalauanReich🗣️ 00:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support if the news isn't explicitly calling it a civil war, they are saying it is turning into one. Clearly enough sources for the move. We can also move it back anyway is they stop calling it that or if it comes to an end PalauanReich🗣️ 00:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Should I do something about the last RM? We got two in this article and it is getting messy. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we should close this one as opened while another was going on? - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 01:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This should still be open incase it actually turns into a civil war. Oddballslover (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
For now, let us have both RMs open, and have all of us discuss this in a separate section. - L'Mainerque - (Woo, /talk/!) - 02:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: I really do not get this obsession of Cherry picking sources to solicit one narrow view. let's start with Support sources:
    • Washington post is citing Crisis Group so putting them as seperate sources is a little dishonest as the aricle does not mention Civil War until it quote the Crisis Group.
    • Crisis group: Even if the army eventually does secure the capital, and Hemedti retreats to Darfur, a civil war could well follow
    • The Economist: Sudan is sliding towards civil war it is not yet! and it is only mentioned in the title
    • Foreign Policy Sudanese analysts warn that the country is now heading toward an all-out civil war., again toward!
    • Fox news: Bidden did not call it a civil war!
    • CBS does not mention the word, not sure why the support used this as evidence!
    • Al Jazeera: in the section of Civil war', says If the conflict drags on, more people in the extremely fragmented Sudanese society might take up arms, says analyst Alex de Waal., this is a speculation although it is true if it happens that this will be a Civil war, not a armed conflict as defined by International committee of the red cross, Amnesty international and Geneva Academy or even in Wikipedia
Al Jazeera itself has its take on this which can be found in How close is Sudan to civil war? ... I am happy to change my mind but I do not see the sources consensus here, let's give it a week maybe ... FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose 1. Fox news has a known bias and as such may be an unreliable source. 2. We have had the discussion before and the outcome ends up with it being to not move the page. FusionSub (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@FudionSub there is a lot of other sources calling it a civil war like Washington post, Foreign policy, New York Post, Aljazeera, CBS news, Independent, Economist, Crisis Group, and more. Oddballslover (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
CBS link does not even mention the word Civil war! FuzzyMagma (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I did not know that @PalauanReich🗣️ found the links. Oddballslover (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma That was because it was had the civil war tag PalauanReich🗣️ 01:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For sequential events, it is always better to date the title. Only years later can one be sure that the COMMONNAME is undated. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe there is tons of sources up above it, so calling it a "civil war" is probably a common name for the conflict. Oddballslover (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    Probably WP:UCRN compliant? My focus is on whether the year is in the title, and I think it should be. I agree on “civil”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    There were two other civil wars in Sudan so it should be the Third Sudanese Civil War if this change would happen or not.  Oddballslover (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    In title case? No. I don’t see any reliable sources calling it that. This history of the redirect shows it point to something different. You are trying to get ahead of sources. For current title serves better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The best quality sources linked by Oddballslover say that Sudan is "sliding towards a civil war," not that this armed conflict is the third Sudanese civil war. The current title is preferable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    Adding on to that: I'm not so sure that it's even appropriate to have the title "Third Sudanese Civil War" redirect here. There's just no sources saying this is the third Sudanese civil war, and as I've already mentioned (and as was explained in more detail by FuzzyMagma), no sources say that this is an ongoing civil war; the one exception to this is Fox, which per WP:RS/P shouldn't be cited for these sorts of topics. But on top of that, the disambiguation page explains that this wouldn't even be the third conflict which could potentially be described as a Sudanese Civil War:
    The term Sudanese Civil War refers to at least three separate conflicts: First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972), Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005), South Sudanese Civil War (2013–2020). It could also refer to other internal conflicts in Sudan and South Sudan: Lord's Resistance Army insurgency (1987–present), Ethnic violence in South Sudan, Sudanese nomadic conflicts, War in Darfur (2003–2020), Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile (2011–2020), 2023 Sudan conflict. As well as conflicts between Sudan and South Sudan after the breakup: Heglig Crisis (2012)
    The War in Darfur was sometimes described as a civil war, more than this present-day conflict has been described as such (at least as of right now). But the War in Darfur article didn't get renamed to the Third Sudanese Civil War, and there's (currently) weaker reasons to name this one as such. What makes this one the third Sudanese civil war and not all the others on that list? As of right now, it's unsourced WP:OR. Personally, I think Third Sudanese Civil War should be a redirect to the Sudanese Civil War disambiguation page.
    Good faith, but it's just too soon to use that name.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    If it becomes a civil war this year it makes sense to call it the Third Sudanese Civil War. Oddballslover (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    If and when, but not before. If I wasn't involved I'd WP:SNOW close this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Wait- while it's definitely gearing up to be a lengthly civil war, so far we are only a week in, premeture at least for now, maybe we can come back in 2 weeks and say it's a civil war but for now, no.
Garmin21 (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now as well. The sources cited above clearly state that it is not yet a civil war, but will likely become one. If and when that happens, then a move would be appropriate. Patr2016 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some media use sliding towards a civil war, but The Guardian 25 Apr uses "fighting" and "clashes"; BBC 24 Apr uses "fighting" and "clashes"; CBS 25 Apr uses "generals at war with each other", "crisis", "clashes", "fighting". Comment: presumably the reason why media are (mostly) not calling this a "civil war" is that this isn't a society-wide fight: it's just two (big) armed groups where most of the civil society groups are opposed to both the SAF and the RSF - it's more like a mafia battle (with heavy casualties) than a society-wide civil war. Boud (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait- Although I think calling it the third Sudanese civil war would be better, I think it would be safer to wait a bit as it might end very fast later on. If it lasts for more than 3 months, i think calling it the third Sudanese civil war will be suitable. If it ends within 3 months of the start, stay with the original name.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Strongly Support: This is a civil war. balladsone 00:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - It doesn't seem to be a civil war yet. We should wait some time before we come to conclusions, and to stick with the more general term "conflict" makes sense in my opinion. ابن.لبنان (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, but wait for the future as per the reasons listed above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Even those sources that say that this is, or is becoming a civil war do not call it "Third Sudanese Civil War" nor even "Sudanese Civil War". The proposed name completely fails COMMONNAME - which AFAI can see the event lacks as yet. Better a 'generic descriptor', as at present - which I found today relatively quickly - than a 'concocted' name, which the proposed one is as yet. Pincrete (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


Civil war?

Should we change the Article to "2023 Sudanese civil war"? Since the rebels took some parts of the country, there are tanks in the streets, air force is active and etc Lucasmota0975 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not heard any sources calling it that. 25stargeneral (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/inside-story/2023/4/14/could-standoff-in-sudan-turn-into-a-civil-war Lucasmota0975 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
That source asks "could it turn into a civil war"? That's not the same as saying it is a civil war. 25stargeneral (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, tbh lets wait more, if the clashes intensify, we consider it as a civil war Lucasmota0975 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
There's clashes across the country and I think it's intense enough to be considered a Civil War. It's more about how long something has to last before it becomes a war instead of clashes. The Austrian Civil War only lasted 5 days and it's called such on Wikipedia. SuperDuperBoy (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It's up to secondary sources on interpreting the conflict as a civil war or not. We simply report what the secondary source says- we are a tertiary source. Bremps! 05:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:NOR. Cheers, Bremps! 05:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Are primary sources not taken into account? Jimmy Jimbo Johnson the V (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that we prefer secondary sources. For instance, if someone posted firsthand photos of a massacre in Sudan on Facebook, we would rather cite a BBCreport that covers it rather than the Facebook photos themselves. Take my word with a grain of salt, though. Bremps! 16:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia and usually primary sources aren't to be used other than for specific purposes and with secondary sources as well. I believe it is because primary sources often have more bias and muddied detail while secondary sources usually have things more worked out. Not sure if that's the real reason why or not, just what I thought of.
Anyways as others have said it is not Wikipedia's place to name events, until a common name comes into use we should keep it with the current title which is just a short description of what it is, not even a name. GramCanMineAway (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Too soon to tell, I recommend waiting a short while (around a few months or so) to see if the majority of secondary sources refer to it as such. As the main person updating the Simple English page for the 2023 Sudan clashes this is very important. FusionSub (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You have to make a quick change, this is not just skirmishes, it is at the national level. the title should be civil war or rebellion in sudan 2023. Matias Taboadaxx (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Uprising might be a better description. It's too soon to say if this will become a civil war. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
We can't call it a Civil War until it is recognized as a Civil War. There are numerous examples of week long civil wars and decades long "unrest periods" in history that were not called civil wars. I agree on your stance that at this point it should be considered a Civil War, we cannot say so until it is recognized by secondary sources. Channel719 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that yes, we need to wait until secondary sources call it that. I personally think it is one already, but it will heavily depend on how long this will last for, and who will become the victor in this struggle. It may end tomorrow, it may end in a year, too early to tell. For now, I guess conflict is a neutral-enough term. --Dynamo128 (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Change the title to "Third Sudanese Civil war"

Sources are starting to call it a civil war: https://www.newsdrum.in/international/sudans-civil-war-enters-its-fourth-day-with-no-sight-of-any-relief

Also i think the clashes got intense enough to consider it as a civil war Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lucasoliveira653 does CNN, BBC, AlJazeera and the majority of the new outlets called it that? I think if we have that consensus then it is easier to move the page to 2023 Sudan or Sudanese civil war FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Still no, but if the fighting intensify, they gonna probabaly call it civil war Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the title "Third Sudanese Civil War" will be eventually used in historical literature regarding this conflict, but until that happens or the media starts naming it as such, the current name is the only name that can be used- see WP:NEO. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If there is a civil war...

Considering that Sudan has been involved in civil war twice, in case of Civil war, should we write it 2023 Sudan Civil War or the Third Sudanese Civil War or something else? Parham wiki (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Has been discussed already with a consensus to not add the phrase "civil war" in the title of the article until RSes begin describing it as such. It's been ongoing for only a week, so it'll be some time prior to such a move. Once RSes describe it as such, however, I would be more in support of "2023 Sudanese Civil War" or "Sudanese Civil War (2023–present)", or something similar Presidentofyes12 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This hasn’t been described as a civil war yet, but I think it’d be best to call it the Third Sudanese Civil War if it becomes something that’s called a civil war. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, balladsone 02:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Per @Blaylockjam10, Agreed. NYMan6 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Unilateral move

I want to bring a discussion because I will probability move this soon . Oddballslover talk 03:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that the c&p moves made by Oddballslover have been reverted by L'Mainerque and me. – robertsky (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
To add on to @Robertsky, the "moves" you (@Oddballslover) did were not only improper and disruptive, they were also done without consensus. - L'Mainerque - (Woo, /talk/!) - 04:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I hope I'm not dog-piling by adding to the chorus of editors trying to explain why this was a bad move, but Oddballslover, moving a page unilaterally in spite of an ongoing requested move discussion (especially one with a strong consensus against the move) is not appropriate. Please do not do this in the future. The purpose of the discussion is to gauge the consensus, and the consensus will determine the title. The page should not be moved while the discussion has not formally closed, and it should not be done unless its closure is with a consensus in favor of the move. And had the discussion closed with a consensus in favor of the move, moving it by copying and pasting its contents into a new page while blanking the old one is not a good way to do it because this does not preserve the revision history. This created quite a headache for the editors trying to undo it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Oddballslover: I woke up to this mess, Jesus Christ don't do that again. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two RMs open.

The problem has been resolved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Me and @Wikiexplorationandhelping are having a disagreement with @Oddballslover over which RM to keep open. For now, I'm keeping both open until we have input by the community over what we should all do. Input is of course appreciated down below. Thanks, - L'Mainerque - (Woo, /talk/!) - 02:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Normally, the earliest RM is the only open RM until it is closed. Here we'll need to decide if the 2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflict RM should be closed. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I feel like a TNT might be necessary here. Getting a bit too messy. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Wikiexplorationandhelping, please clarify? - L'Mainerque - (Woo, /talk/!) - 03:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking to clear everything and start an RM, anew. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
no, TNT is not required just because you did not get the result you wanted. Just wait for somone to close it as it is clear that the article won't be moved. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I never wanted any result. It is just messy and I am trying to clean it up. I just thought of that as an idea. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
If the conflict ends soon we should close the 2023 Sudan conflict → Third Sudanese Civil War RM but if the conflict get worse we should close the 2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflict RM. Oddballslover (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"ends soon" or "get worse" is not a criteria to define a conflict as a "Civil war" FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Criteria you labelled to keep the civil war RM is not how it works, we have had much worse civil conflicts and they aren't labelled as a civil war, while the Austrian Civil War definitely was less severe yet we do call it a civil war. It depends on what the majority of sources call it. FusionSub (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@FusionSub look at Talk:2023 Sudan conflict#Requested move 24 April 2023 there is a lot of links. Oddballslobver (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oddballslover Do you mean under FuzzyMagma's comment or your original opener FusionSub (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change the title to 3rd Sudanese Civil War

Closing... see Talk:2023 Sudan conflict#Requested move 24 April 2023 for a centralized discussion on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's a civil war now sadly 95.148.25.109 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There already is a move request above, just in case you're interested. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Already had this discussion before FusionSub (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Wait CNN and BCC call it a civil war Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Lucasoliveira653 could you show sources? NYMan6 (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@NYMan6 Look at Talk:2023 Sudan conflict#Requested move 24 April 2023. Oddballslover (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Oddballslover Most sources listed in that discussion are saying it could become a civil war. FusionSub (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Lucasoliveira653 Why CNN and BBC? Oddly specific news sources PalauanReich🗣️ 01:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 25 April 2023

 :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to change the article title from 2023 Sudan conflict to 2023 Sudan crisis. Just like the 1958 Lebanon crisis and the Congo Crisis DitorWiki (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Slow down a bit, wait for the RM to finish before proposing a new title. – MaterialWorks (contribs) 01:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@DitorWiki this are not political crisis, this is a large conflict a political crisis would be a short-term controversial event NYMan6 (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
the 1958 Lebanese crisis was almost like a civil war DitorWiki (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
There is already another RM open. And this is not a crisis. Oddballslover (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This needs to be decided soon not in a couple of years. Oddballslover (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Oddballslover: You should have opened a discussion with the closer, @Czello: first rather than reverting the close, twice even after a friendly advice was left on your talk not to do so and to follow what's set out in WP:Move review. You also had attempted an unilateral move, in disregard of the discussion you had opened. Your behaviour in this aspect is thus far has been disruptive. Another discussion can be opened when there's sufficient sources reporting this event as a civil war, better yet, calling it a Civil War. It may not take years as you think it is as there have been other articles with RMs opened just weeks or months after the event or initial RMs due to consistent reporting. – robertsky (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Oddballslover: I suggest you take a break from editing this article. Read WP:HORSEMEAT, work on your drafts, and avoid edit warring. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Denials, again

I was going to put the denials in again as there was no reason given for their removal (at least that I could see...) but I saw that denials shouldn't be placed there. Could I ask why that is? Genabab (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring - Extended confirmed protection

Article is having some heavy edit warring lately due to its In The News (ITN) status. I have opened a extended protection request to decrease the amount of edit warring. I would appreciate if rest of the top editors could support the request at that page. Thanks. @Borgenland, TheWhiterCloud, FuzzyMagma, 25stargeneral, Blaylockjam10, and Borysk5: Ecrusized (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"part of transition to democracy"?

Why de facto civil war is part of democratic transition? As far as I know it is power struggle and it has anything to do with democratisation Polonianova (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

From what I understand it is to do with the fact that the dispute came from how quick the democratisation process would play out. The RSF wanted 10+ years whereas the Sudanese Army wanted 2025 or something like that. Genabab (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Sudan has been facing a struggle to transfer power from the military to the civilian state since the ousting of former President Omar al-Bashir in April 2019. The military took control of the country after al-Bashir's removal, and although a transitional government was formed, it has been a rocky road towards a fully civilian-led government. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename the page to "Third Sudanese Civil War"

Anyone think we should rename the page as such? Theasiancowboy (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

there has been 3 requests already Von bismarck (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Already too many requests, we should calm down on changing the page title until more sources call it such Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Now the Guardian is calling it a civil war. Not much longer till cnn bbc and others start. Source:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/25/sudan-conflict-why-is-there-fighting-what-is-happening PalauanReich🗣️ 14:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@PalauanReich are we reading the same article! can you read the article name please? FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Gdn actually refers to "a burgeoning civil war", but its principal - identifying - descriptor is "Sudan Conflict". This is light years away from "Nth Sudanese Civil War" being the WP:COMMONNAME - what's the rush? A common name will organically develop if this continues. Pincrete (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I swear some people here are rooting for civil war. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
While there are certainly armed groups operating in various regions of the country and there have been clashes between these groups and government forces. Given this complexity, it may be best to simply describe the situation in Sudan as a conflict rather than trying to categorize it as a civil war or military conflict. By doing so, you would be acknowledging the multifaceted nature of the situation and avoiding oversimplification. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Will there be any other battles added

As we can see Khartoum is not only area of battle and Sudan is a pretty large country and there are battles happening in other areas when will thouse battles have their own page 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:2542:282B:5FEB:7683 (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I take it by 'page' you mean 'article'. In order for other battles to qualify for an article. We need quite a bit of info about the battle, of which we currently don't have from reliable sources. FusionSub (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Only 'Battle of Khartoum' fits the category of battle as of right now NYMan6 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
We should Create "Battle of Geneina(2023), since clashes began again Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Lucasoliveira653 We'd need several sources at least 20 and enough coverage at the beginning of the article for it to happen NYMan6 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Several paragraphs describing looting and fighting in Geneina
Just mentions that fighting happened
Describes the fighting between the two sides, includes quotes from a local
Only mentions that eyewitnesses reported violence
So, we have several levels of source quality, but the events have definitely been covered. Also I don't think that 20 sources are needed for an article to be created? That seems a little excessive, and definitely not policy. Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
And here is an article that goes deeper in detail about the events in Geneina Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I think Darfur deserves to have some sort of page given that it and Khartoum appear to be bearing the brunt of the fighting so far. Borgenland (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Borgenland I'd name it "Darfur offensive (2023)" just like we named 'Kyiv offensive (2022)'
I'd start it with:
The Darfur offensive is a theater or offensive in Sudan caused by the 2023 Sudan conflict . It involves attacks by the Rapid Support Forces across the Chadian-Sudanese borders and in several Sudanese towns and citites, beginning on 15 April 2023, for control of Darfur, the largest region of Sudan, and it's cities. As of 26 April 2023, the RSF controls most of Darfur, including cities such Geneina. NYMan6 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Great idea. Hopefully more details come out. Borgenland (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that way we could collect sources to finalize it and actually make the article NYMan6 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Egypt as a belligerent

Egypt is currently listed as a belligerent, with a note pointing to the section 2023 Sudan conflict#Egypt. That section, however, does not support naming Egypt as a party here: the presence of a few (destroyed) fighter jets and some personnel has been explained with exercises predating the conflict. RSf themselves, according to our text, accepted that explanation and repatriated the Egyptian prisoners. The WSJ is invoked as a source here, but the reference is missing. The article can probably be found, but at this point it is also outdated. The most forceful source for the section is some ex-CIA's Twitter account. That's not enough, bluecheck or not.

This may be an instance where Wikipedia making a claim could have outsized effects, considering everybody else is (rightly) equivocating on the question. Let's not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, please. I'm removing Egypt as a belligerent and will try to defuse the section on the topic. K. Oblique 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Karl Oblique: The two citations placed next to Egypt note state that Egyptian aircraft have been involved in airstrikes against RSF and that Egyptian personnel have been providing intelligence and tactical support to SAF. The second citation reaffirms from RSF that an unnamed country has been launching airstrikes against them. Destroyed aircraft and POW's you have cited above are wholly unrelated to Egyptian involvement. Reinstated. Ecrusized (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "Unnamed country" is, almost tautologically, rather weak support for any one country.
  • As above, some ex-CIA making bold statements on Twitter is not a reliable source.
  • The conflict parties seem to agree, possibly even against better knowledge, that Egypt isn't involved. Otherwise, why should RSF return Egyptian POWs within days if they consider them enemies?
K. Oblique 08:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
A single former CIA analyst, (with or without local expertise/up to date info and attributed by MEE) is an extraordinarily weak source upon which to claim that Egypt is actively engaged militarily in a 'foreign' country. Agree that the RSF claims that 'someone is attacking us' prove nothing. WP is meant to be a place for RS info not surmisal rendered as fact.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
There is now an additional source The WSJ being used to support the assertion that Egypt is an active belligerent in this conflict. Actually the piece says the opposite: "A powerful Libyan militia leader and the Egyptian military have sent military support to rival generals battling (in Sudan) … people familiar with the matter say, an illustration of how the fighting threatens to draw in regional powers." Fairly self-evidently a country cannot simultaneously be already actively fighting but there be a risk that they might be 'drawn into' that same fighting. That regional powers may support rival local factions seems fairly indisputable, but, by analogy, US, Germany, France UK etc etc support Ukraine, but NONE of them are active belligerents in that conflict, No source AFAI can see supports that any outside power is actively engaged in fighting at present, ie they are NOT belligerents and it is WP:OR to say they are. Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

New article?

I think we should make a article about a refugee crisis, I've seen evidence of thousands of Khartoum residents and thousands of other people from all across the story fleeing to Chad and Egypt, the last reports reported the number at at least 20,000 for Chad but nothing for Egypt this number has probably rised as the conflict intensified even more after the ceasefire. I think there is enough info and enough intensity to make another article related to this, I'll also try and find sources to support this possibly.

NYMan6 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I did a couple of updates on the main page. Feel free to incorporate them. Borgenland (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sudanese Doctor Group

Is the Sudan Doctors Union the same as the Sudan Doctors Syndicate? I keep finding variations in news outlets. Borgenland (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland yes (at least in the news), if you are asking about who reporters casualties FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Borgenland Yes, new outlets can report it differently which varies between romanization in languages or their choices NYMan6 (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

Add this to: Rapid Support Forces supported by:

@Masterchief117343 that is not a good source. It’s a leaked record assumed to be of someone who is alleging UAE involvement. That is alot of assumptions and primary sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the 2nd source. But it doesn’t backup you edit FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wagner Group Icon in the infobox

Wagner Group is a private company, similar to Triple Canopy and Blackwater (company) both operated in Iraq with contracts from US army. They have been involved in different contracts but they are not Russia o considered a Russian army FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

What are you basing this on?? According to its article. "It is variously described as a... de facto private army of Russian President Vladimir Putin." [1][2] and "It is widely speculated that the Wagner Group is used by the Russian government to allow for plausible deniability in certain conflicts, and to obscure from the public the number of casualties and financial costs of Russia's foreign interventions.[3]" Ecrusized (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
According to its Wikipedia article, right next to the "de facto private army" text you cited, it is also described as "a private military company (PMC), [or] a network of mercenaries". We should keep the footnote describing its connection to Russia, while also keeping the OG Wagner Group icon there Presidentofyes12 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
There are ZERO reliable sources, aside from Russian state propaganda which are WP:DEPRECATED that state Wagner Group to have the slightest degree of autonomy from the Russian Federal Government. Ecrusized (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It’s based on the way we used the insignia of RSF and SAF and not the Sudanese flag. It you know the exact unit then use their insignia that why it’s for FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It was removed anyway due to copyright on non free image. I will put the Russian flag back FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The Wagner often does RF's 'dirty work' and no one thinks they are wholly independent, but the relationship is not one in which they are directly answerable to Russia either It is widely speculated that the Wagner Group is used by the Russian government … for various reasons, does not mean they ARE directly in Russia's chain of command, nor that anyone knows what the relationship actually IS - hence "speculated" - and we shouldn't imply that they are officially 'Russian'. The underlying problems though to my mind are that we are asking the infobox to give nuanced answers, when it is meant to only have simple factual, uncontroversial 'facts', and to an extent we are asking this article to cover matters better covered on the Wagner group article, or elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Faulkner, Christopher (June 2022). Cruickshank, Paul; Hummel, Kristina (eds.). "Undermining Democracy and Exploiting Clients: The Wagner Group's Nefarious Activities in Africa" (PDF). CTC Sentinel. 15 (6). West Point, New York: Combating Terrorism Center: 28–37. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 16 August 2022.
  2. ^ "What is the Wagner Group, Russia's mercenary organisation?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 16 March 2022. "From a legal perspective, Wagner doesn't exist," says Sorcha MacLeod
  3. ^ Brimelow, Ben. "Russia is using mercenaries to make it look like it's losing fewer troops in Syria". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

Word used to describe the conflict tracker

This is not really a discussion about the move, more a centralized place to keep the sources and track which sources call it what. Please update this as more stories come out. This sources list is just a list of all generally reliable sources that cover this event as well as a couple unclear or others that cover it. The article chosen is the most recent one from each news source

Al Jazeera: Clashes/conflict
Amnesty Intl: Conflict
AP: Conflict/conflict
Axios: Urban warfare/risking civil war/fighting
Barrons: Fierce fighting/conflict
BBC: Conflict/chaos/fighting
Bloomberg: Fighting/war
CBS: Crisis/fighting/conflict | Tagged with "civil war"
Christian Science Monitor: Battle/conflict/clashes
CNBC: Conflict/clashes/fighting
CNN: Fierce fighting/conflict/clashes
Crisis Group: Conflict/clashes/fighting | Conflict could be a civil war
DW: Fighting/violence/conflict
Economist: Fighting/conflict | Sliding towards civil war
Financial Express: Battle/conflict
Forbes: Power struggle/clashes/conflict
Foreign Policy: Fighting/violence
Fox: Violence/conflict | "On the brink of another civil war"
FT: Power struggle/fighting/conflict | "If the conflict in Sudan escalates into civil war"
Haaretz: Violence/fighting/clashes
HRW: Fighting/conflict
Indian Express: Battle/conflict/clashes/fighting
India Today: Conflict
Insider: Conflict/fighting | "to get out of the civil war zone" in title
LA Times: Clashes/conflict/fighting
MSNBC: Violence/power struggle
NBC: Conflict/clashes/fighting | "conflict ... threatens to explode into all-out civil war" and "rush to escape before Sudan plunges into civil war"
NewsNation: Conflict/clashes/fighting
Newsweek: Conflict/clashes/battle/fighting
New Yorker: Conflict/clashes
NPR: Conflict/war
NY Post: Fighting | "country’s continued descent into a bloody civil war." on April 22
NYT: Conflict
PBS: Conflict/battle/clashes
Politico: Conflict
Red Cross: Conflict
Reuters: Conflict/battle/war | "Sudan to the brink of civil war" and "fear of an all-out civil war"
SCMP: Conflict/clashes/fighting
Seattle Times: Conflict
Sky News: Violence/fighting/conflict/clashes
Spiegel: Conflict | "It is a power struggle between two men, a civil war without civilians"
Sydney Morning Herald: Battle/fighting
The Atlantic: Conflict
The Conversation: Conflict | "Sudan stands on the brink of yet another civil war"
The Guardian: Clashes/conflict | "as a burgeoning civil war threatens to destabilise"
The Hill: Combat/conflict
The Independent: Fighting/conflict/battle | Tagged with civil war
The Nation: Violence
The Times (Israel): Conflict/fighting/battles | the conflict should be seen as “the first round of a civil war.”
The Times (UK): Fighting/violence (could be more behind paywall)
Time: Violence/conflict/clashes/fighting
UN: Violence/chaos/conflict/clashes/fighting
USA Today: Fighting/conflict/clashes
US Gov (DOD): Conflict/fighting
USIP: Confrontation/clashes/fighting
US News: Conflict/clashes/fighting
Vanity Fair: Clashes/fighting/war
WaPo: Fighting/conflicy/conflagration
WHO: Clashes/conflict/fighting | A WHO rep warned "could spiral into a deadly civil war."
WSJ: Power battle
Yahoo: Bloody clashes/conflict
PalauanReich🗣️ 00:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Great thread! balladsone 04:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Nice work FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Loved this! NYMan6 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sock puppets - Extended confirmed protection

Article is still having edit warring by possibly newly created sock puppet accounts. I have opened a new extended protection request to decrease the amount of edit warring and stop the sock puppeting. I would appreciate if rest of the top editors could support the request at that page. Thanks. @Borgenland, TheWhiterCloud, FuzzyMagma, 25stargeneral, Blaylockjam10, and Borysk5: Ecrusized (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: I suggest you drop the stick and your illusion of sockpuppetry. There are 3 editors you are reverting against. RCB88 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed alleged. Please do not put it again as denials by RCF or any is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both @Ecrusized and @RCB88 for your work on the article but your dispute is starting to become really disruptive and will scare other editors who are keen to contribute. May I ask both of you just to take time off, away from this article, just to cool down and gain a fresh perspective. I really do not think any1 is here to “win an argument” but rather to help. I’m not siding with any1 but please think beyond your dispute FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Egypt as a belligerent in the infobox

FuzzyMagma, you removed 'alleged' here. Thus WP is currently saying that Egyptian forces are currently actively participating in this fighting. The sources used are 1) a single ex-CIA analyst whose current local expertise or status is wholly unknown and whom even Middle Eastern Eye attributes. MEE does not say Egypt is doing any fighting, using its own voice, but we do in our infobox. 2) Al Arabiya, quotes RSF as claiming that 'foreign aircraft' were attacking them. This is near worthless as a claim, apart from their claims being questionable, how could they know the aircraft were 'foreign' without identifying them? 3) WSJ has now been added, which certainly endorses that regional powers support rival local factions, but it actually contradicts the idea that the regional powers are currently actively militarily engaged. The WSJ article actually says the opposite: "A powerful Libyan militia leader and the Egyptian military have sent military support to rival generals battling (in Sudan) … people familiar with the matter say, an illustration of how the fighting threatens to draw in regional powers." Fairly self-evidently a country cannot simultaneously be already actively fighting but also there be a risk that they might be 'drawn into' that fighting. The part of the WSJ which we quote says: "Egypt, which has officially called for an end to the fighting, sent jet fighters just before the fighting started and additional pilots soon after to support Gen. Burhan. " Again this is not proof of any military engagement by Egypt, though it does imply a willingness to become involved.

That regional powers may support rival local factions seems fairly indisputable, but, by analogy, US, Germany, France UK etc etc support Ukraine, very actively in some cases, but NONE of these are belligerents in that conflict, Not a single source AFAI can see does more than imply that Egypt could be actually engaged in fighting at present, or soon - ie they are NOT belligerents and it is WP:OR for us to say they are.

The text gives a fairly accurate, nuanced account of the possible support and or engagement by Egypt, but the infobox IMO makes a wholly unqualified claim, based on SYNTH-y reading of sources. When we are accusing a country of killing people - or attempting to do so - it is extremely irresponsible for us to not have rock-solid sourcing for the claim. We don't have a single source AFAI can see apart from the single ex-CIA man, who may be ill-informed, or even a fantasist for all we know. IMO we should remove the Egyptian involvement from the infobox, since an infobox is not a proper place for anything other than rock-solid certainties, which this at present is not IMO. Pincrete (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the assertion that Egypt is a belligerent from the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

As WSJ quotes, "(Egypt) ...sent jet fighters just before the fighting started and additional pilots soon after to support Gen. Burhan". Can't get any clearer than this. Ecrusized (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Support is not active engagement. The UK sent planes, troops and weapons to Eastern Europe before the Russian invasion of Ukraine (hoping to contain any threat). The US and Germany and many others are continuing to supply weaponry to Ukraine. The UK trains Ukrainian forces, but NONE of them is a 'belligerent' in that conflict. If Egypt were widely acknowledged to be fighting, the majority of sources would say it explicitly. They don't - simple as that. Support is not active engagement Can't get any clearer than this No source except a single retired CIA analyst actually says that Egyptian forces are actively involved at present and the WSJ implies they aren't YET if you read the rest of it. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
ps sent jet fighters just before the fighting started does not mean "now those jets are fighting", but it does indicate a general willingness to support the Govt 'side'. Pincrete (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't care about Ukraine or any other subject. Reference states "(Egypt) sent planes ...soon after (the fighting started) to support Gen. Burhan" and that's that. Ecrusized (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Ukraine was an example to make the point that 'support' is not the same as active engagement. Countries frequently send aircraft as support that never actually fight. The presence of the aircraft is intended to stabilise. None the less, you cannot avoid the fact that no source is actually saying that foreign forces are engaged in fighting AS YET in Sudan. Pincrete (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I’m on the side of removing both Egypt, libya and Wagner from the infobox as there involvement needs alot contextualisation which can be discussed in the text. All of these support groups either deny or not actually supporting. It’s not a cleat cut situation compared to other wars. The example for Ukraine is a good one as Belarus is overtly supporting Russia or even can be considered part of the invasion.
@Ecrusized and @Pincrete hope you agree FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I haven't looked closely at Libya and Wagner, but I agree with your general point - that the amount of contextualisation makes anything other than VERY clear active engagement unsuitable for the infobox. I actually started a discussion at RSN as to whether the sources support including Egypt as a belligerent. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The example of Ukraine or any other article is basically WP:OTHERCONTENT. None of the belligerents should be removed as long as reliable sources such as CNN, BBC and WSJ are reporting it. Denials from Russia and other warlords are wholly irrelevant. Russian state media such as RT are WP:DEPRECATED. Furthermore this argument is not a ballot box, Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Nevertheless I will ping top editors in order to avoid getting into an edit war. @Borgenland, TheWhiterCloud, FuzzyMagma, 25stargeneral, Blaylockjam10, and Borysk5: Ecrusized (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ecrusized don’t worry about edit wars, I have no plans on changing the text until we get more clarity. It’s a learning process that will help me when editing other pages.
@Pincrete can you share the link for the RSN discussion. I think we can find more experienced editors there who can help with a 3O FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
FuzzyMagma, RSN discussion is here. the only person to weigh in so far agrees that an attributed claim (from MEE) is OK but that Egypt's involvement should not be stated in WP:VOICE as a fact - which is what putting it unqualified in the infobox does. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ecrusized please don’t tag “top editors”. Try WP:3O, normally an admin or experienced editor will weigh in and clarifies which policies applies here FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
True. I'm not a veteran here I just happen to have my computer turned on 20 hours a day with an internet tab that I haven't closed showing liveblogs from a cacophony of news sites. Borgenland (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Ecrusized re None of the belligerents should be removed as long as reliable sources such as CNN, BBC and WSJ are reporting it, I cannot comment on Libya nor Wagner, since I don't know what is claimed about them nor what the sources say, but my whole point about Egypt is that the sources simply DON'T say that Egypt is a belligerent. Egypt favours one side - certainly - Egypt sent planes before and pilots since the start of the conflict, sure. But the assertion that Egypt is presently intentionally killing people in Sudan (or at least trying to kill them) - which is what being a belligerent means - is not supported by anyone except a former CIA analyst in MEE. Support takes many forms, political, diplomatic, technical etc, etc, but you have leapt to the conclusion that Egypt's 'support' necessarily equals active military engagement by them and their planes - it doesn't. We would expect much stronger and clearer sources if Egypt actually were fighting in Sudan, though WSJ speaks of it as a danger. I made the Ukraine analogy because you didn't seem to acknowledge that 'support' is not automatically the same as actively fighting. You still don't offer any sources that say what Egypt is supposedly doing. Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Pincrete I hope you can look to UAE and Libya involvement too as BBC and CNN mention of them is - I believe - similar to Egypt.
  • UAE: for the case of UAE that cited source use a very deceiving title UAE behind RSF's attempted coup in Sudan, leaked recording says but in the article it says Social media users have circulated a recording attributed to the former head of Sudanese intelligence, Salah Gosh, accusing the United Arab Emirates of being behind recent events in Sudan.. Thus UAE Should be removed from infobox removed from infobox as it should not be included from the 1st place given the quality of the source and it is not being included in the text
  • Libya: the Ahram (egyptian news paper with ties to the goverment) says Sudan's army chief says Haftar denies supporting RSF; no confirmation on Wagner Group’s involvement which contradict CNN report on the Wagner Group envolvement (but later will talk about that and the source should be dismissed anyway as it quotes primary sources). Other cited sources like The Guardian talks about Khalifa Haftar ties to RSF before this conflict. Should be removed from infobox
  • Wagner Group: this is a clear cut as CNN, Aljazeera and NYT make wagner involvement clear. Should stay in the infobox
  • Egypt: Al Arabiya is quoting RSF alleging Egypt involvement. Then you have former CIA analyst Cameron Hudson allegations with no evidence. The other source and the BBC asserts that Egyptian equipment and supporting personnel were conducting exercises with the Sudanese military prior to the conflict. Wall Street Journal is behind a payement wall so please quote what is written in the article if you think it will provide more inforamtion. Should be removed from infobox
FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
What WSJ says is already quoted in ref, "Egyptian military have sent military support to rival generals...Egypt, which has officially called for an end to the fighting, sent jet fighters just before the fighting started and additional pilots soon after to support Gen. Burhan" Ecrusized (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ecrusized hmmm first this is not mentioned in the Egypt section, second the end of that section says After initial confusion, the RSF accepted the explanation that Egyptian equipment and supporting personnel were conducting exercises with the Sudanese military prior to the outbreak of hostilities cited to BBC. These are two conflicting accounts FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
With regards to Libya, WSJ asserts that Hafter has dispatched a plane with supplies to RSF on 17 April. after fighting erupted. Denials are wholly irrelevant. Ecrusized (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Egypt does not participate in this conflict or support one side on the other until now. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"While there may be some sources discussing this claim or idea, it's important to keep in mind that there is currently no clear evidence to support it. As such, it would be more accurate to view it as speculation at this time. It's always important to critically evaluate information and sources to make informed decisions." Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Sarah SchneiderCH who are you quoting? FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ecrusized again you need to add the 17 of April as it was not clear wether it was before or after FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: I have placed 17 April in the LNA reference quote. Ecrusized (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Supported by" section in the infobox

Someone removed (twice) the "supported by" section (including references to the Libyan National Army and the Wagner Group) on the ground that no consensus had been reached on these and that they were officially denied. It appears to be common practice to include supporters even despite denials (cf. South Sudanese Civil War, Mali War), is there any compelling reason not to do it here? Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

If they are denied, wait for more evident sources or at best, official claims to be placed in the lead's box, perhaps? RCB88 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
If the statement is wrong, but the currently chaotic Sudanese Government (in the case of Wagner) ends up believing it, or just considering it possible, they might act on that (false) belief. They could, for example, arrest some Russians that could otherwise have left the country. That, in turn, would require a response from Russia. K. Oblique 08:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
If the Sudanese Government gets its intel from a Wikipedia infobox with (alleged) written on it, I'm not sure it's exactly our fault. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

These "support" came before the conflict, not during it, as sources read in the sub-section. @Borgenland: support by Wagner was before the conflict, so this is irrelevant, while support by Haftar is only vague one plane claimed supply from one source. RCB88 (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @RCB88:. Support that was provided before the conflict is not the same as support during the conflict. Also, multiple sources would be needed for confirmation of support during the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: Support did not come before the conflict. As it is quoted in the reference Khalifa Haftar, the commander of a faction that controls eastern Libya, dispatched at least one plane to fly military supplies to Sudan's paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Ecrusized (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
For the pre-conflict support I was referring to Wagner. As for the LNA, so far only one source has made this claim. Like I said, multiple sources would be needed. EkoGraf (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree with @EkoGraf:. Both Dagalo and al-Burhan had close ties to Russia before the fighting broke out, and while it is true that Wagner supported Dagalo's RSF before the current conflict, as did the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other actors, there is so far no clear evidence that Wagner supports the RSF during the ongoing fighting. Both RSF and Wagner denied the allegations, and even al-Burhan said he had no evidence for the claims. The only source is CNN, which quoted some anonymous US officials about Wagner's alleged plans to support the RSF. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Offer

Isn't it time to create an article Chronology of the 2023 Sudan conflict? DBatura (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, hello please see #Split of "Timeline" section, discussion there is taking place regarding it Presidentofyes12 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't notice right away. DBatura (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Split of "Timeline" section

When would the Timeline section in the article become large enough to warrant its own article? What size would it have to be, would it be after a certain time period, etc. Not saying it should be done now, just asking when it would be necessary Presidentofyes12 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Presidentofyes12, I would rather make article like we did for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the section is becoming bigger, I am also looking into making some battle articles. NYMan6 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I could try to start on a Darfur campaign (2023) article, or some other name. Possibly "Darfur clashes", "Darfur offensive", etc Presidentofyes12 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Can we also put the reaction section into an article and just summarise what is written in this article FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing Wikipedia:Splitting, sections above 50 KB would likely benefit from a split and summary- the Timeline seems to meet that criteria, at about 52 KB. On the other hand, sections below 30 KB would not, and the Reactions section is about 29 KB. Of course whether or not a split is necessary for sections below 30 KB depends on the actual subject of the section but in this case I don't believe a split there is warranted yet. If it grows then it'd make more sense to split over time. The Timeline section, though, could benefit from a split in the near future Presidentofyes12 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Sooner rather than later. In its current state, the article is almost unreadable because the timeline occupies a gigantic part of it. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed: @WaltCip thats why I gave the idea above, I'd like the article to be named something such as Timeline of the 2023 Sudan clashes, like we did with Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine: Prelude and several other's NYMan6 (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I support the creation of a separate article on timeline. DBatura (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I am going to begin splitting the timeline section into a new article rn, it's section in the main article will require consolidation soon. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes I am looking into that as well Darfur offensive (2023) or Darfur campaign (2023) NYMan6 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we should created a Darfur campaign(2023) ASAP, @NYMan6 create the article, and i will help Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I'll be working on it between possibly today and tomorrow, it might be completed by tomorrow NYMan6 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Move request

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per snowball clause . Informal RM that only rehashes the previous 3 requests without bringing up any new information or justifying the proposed move. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 18:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a move to Third Sudanese Civil War Oddballslover (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

What is this? What's that weird template you put at the top of the article? Why did you copy-paste PalauanReich's reply? Why didn't you open a normal move request? 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Not a normal move request, but we should change the title when most sources cite the crisis as an “civil war”. WikiManUser21 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
A cursory look shows that most sources are not calling it a civil war yet. Here:
〜 Festucalex • talk 06:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Even those soureces that refer to a civil war - or often an 'unfolding' civil war, or similar - don't call it the "Nth Sudanese Civil War. Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This move suggestion was SNOW closed in mid-April - and any variant of 'Nth Civil War' seems to have been rejected as not supported by sources. What has changed? Pincrete (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) PS I've restored PalauanLibertarian's original comments and section heading … which I presume/hope were inadvertantly changed. Pincrete (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete: No, this guy copy-pasted it. The section is still up there, and now there's two of it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, since PalauanLibertarian's sources are still above, and there is no context or attribution to them here, I've removed this repeat. Pincrete (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Support ok i thik it's now time to change it, consediring we have now tw battle articles, a offensive article, and many sources now are calling it a civil war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasoliveira653 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose considering how there have been multiple discussions on a move to smth with "civil war" in it and all ended in a "not moved" because it'd be premature. At this point I wouldn't be opposed to a moratorium on move requests for some time Presidentofyes12 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, I spent tons of time look at sources and made a whole list. The majority of sources call it a conflict. @Oddballslover Can you wait until the majority of sources call it the 3rd Civil War. See GOI. PalauanReich🗣️ 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: not again! How many times do we need to discuss this. It’s included at the top of the page that this has already been discussed FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: No sources AT ALL calling it Third Sudanese Civil War nor Nth Sudanese Civil War, none naming it a civil war - precious few simply using the term within text (as a projected future possibility often). We are a million miles away from this event having acquired any COMMONNAME - except 'conflict'. Pincrete (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose and instate moratorium: this has been a source of disruption to this article for two weeks now. I propose a moratorium on move requests for the time being, because some editors apparently take it very personally that this article be moved, and are willing to resort to disruptive editing for it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken infobox templates

The Template:Country data derivatives don't seem to work for the non-state actors involved in support in the infobox? Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. Eighth RM on the matter, rehash of this one. Editors should wait a few months before opening a new RM, especially if it's proposing a change that has strong consensus against it. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 19:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflict – It doesn’t seem gramatically correct. I mean, it’s like saying “America Civil War”, “Syria Civil War”, “Romania Revolution”, etc. WikiManUser21 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please remove the tag at the page. This has been discussed. You argument is not new and means you actually did not read the previous discussion before opening this one FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, if it was deleted, how could I see it? WikiManUser21 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hints to read this page

@WikiManUser21: The previous discussions are not deleted. Scroll to the top of this talk page and you should see This page has previously been nominated to be moved. ... Not moved, 21 April 2023, from 2023 Sudan conflict to 2023 Sudanese conflict, see discussion. The words see discussion link to Special:PermanentLink/1151597951#Requested move 21 April 2023 where you can read the discussion and closing comments. Dates and links to the other discussions are listed there too. Boud (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok! WikiManUser21 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudanese_civil_war_(2023–present)/Archive_1&oldid=1246705227"