Talk:War in Sudan (2023–present)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hilst (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 5 May 2023 (→‎Move request: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I support the creation of a separate article on timeline. DBatura (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes I am looking into that as well Darfur offensive (2023) or Darfur campaign (2023) NYMan6 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Offer

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

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

Wagner...

The info-box lists Wagner as a backer of the militia forces. My understanding though is that while Wagner had previously done training with the militias, this was when they were still under the government's control. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Russia supports an overthrow of the Sudanese government, and in fact they'd recently concluded an agreement for Sudan to host a Russian naval base, so it'd make no sense for them to try to overthrow or destabilize a government that had just agreed to let them set up a new base. -2003:CA:870C:E18:5741:A3A3:2CE8:D385 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE: There was no reply here for a few days, so I went ahead and WP:BOLD removed the Wagner allegations from the info-box....The text there had stated that Wagner's involvement in the conflict was "alleged," but no source has been cited with anyone specifically alleging it. In the BBC article which was cited[1], the BBC seems to try to insinuate that Wagner might somehow be involved in the current conflict, but if you read carefully you'll see that they never actually specifically state this. And in fact they write that: "We've found no evidence that Russian mercenaries are currently inside the country. But there is evidence of Wagner's previous activities in Sudan, and Mr Prighozin's operations in the country have been targeted by both US and EU sanctions."

And none of the other people whose statements they report in that article (including that of Trump Admin official from three years ago) specifically allege Wagner involvement in the current conflict either.

A Military Africa article was also cited [2], but this one again has no mention of any specific allegation that Wagner is involved in the current conflict - siding with the militia forces against the government, as the info-box had alleged. In fact it actually cites a Sudanese government statement to the contrary: "The Sudanese government has also denied any knowledge of the Wagner group’s presence in the country." If Wagner were involved in the conflict and siding with the rebelling militia forces against the government, one would think that the government would be eager to make that known, in order to get more Western support...

In any case, in the absence of even any clearly stated allegations from reliable sources, it only makes sense to completely remove Wagner from the info-box. -2003:CA:870C:ED4:87F1:B283:22C9:D3E2 (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your contribution as the section about Wanger provides enough argument to their inclusion. If you disagree; I’d recommend starting from that section, and work your way to the infobox; as the infobox is a summary and not were informative are contested FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma - With all due respect, you seem to be confused. Literally nothing in the Wagner section of the article substantiates the claim that Wagner is involved in the current conflict on the side of the militias against the government. Wagner likely worked with the (now-rebelling) militias at some point in the past, when they were under the control of the Sudanese government, but this is NOT the same thing as supporting these groups now, against the government of Sudan.
And indeed, if one operates under the assumption (as I do) that Wagner, despite its quasi "private" official status, is in fact a de-facto branch of the Russian state, it would make no sense at all for them to be trying to overthrow or destabilize a government which had just agreed to host a Russian military base (a naval base on the Red Sea). There are multiple reports from shortly prior to the start of the conflict about how the Sudanese government was in the process of finalizing that deal with Russia. [3]
In any event, while the "Wagner" section of the article itself could probably use some work and better clarification, the info-box, which directly stated that Wagner was involved in this conflict on the anti-government side is the more pressing issue. And unless/until you can find a source which substantiates their involvement in the current conflict, on the anti-government side, Wagner should not be included in the info-box at all. I'm going ahead and removing it again, as there's zero substantiation at this point. -2003:CA:870C:ED4:87F1:B283:22C9:D3E2 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Magma is stuck up even when everything points towards Wagner not being involved in the current conflict. Fenn Viktor (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of Wagner support has already been discussed, see previous discussion here [4]. General consensus was that Wagner provided support to the RSF BEFORE the current conflict, while there is no evidence Wagner is providing support DURING this conflict, which is two different things. So, the alleged Wagner support should be removed until more (reliable) sources confirm they are providing support during this conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like people to actually contribute to this conversation prior to re-adding Wagner in the infobox. I agree that until RSes clearly state that Wagner is actively supporting the RSF during the conflict, Wagner shouldn't be added to the infobox. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentofyes12 I appreciate doing due diligence but RSF and Wagner statement or denial should be included but shouldn’t change anything as it should be viewed as a primary source unless it was supported by independent analysis. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, support can take many forms, from diplomatic support, via technical and intelligence aid, or sale of arms, through to active support in military operations. Unless we can say what kind and degree of support, it's a bit pointless - and dangerous - saying country X supports group Y, when that support may be no more than diplomatic, or tactical advice. I note that we are again saying that Egypt is fighting - although we have no more than a single ex-CIA analyst in MEE claiming this, and editor's assuming that Egypt having sent planes BEFORE the conflict, is actively attacking with them DURING the conflict. That's an astonishly low level of sourcing for the claim that Egypt is at war and killing people in Sudan (the meaning of being a belligerent) IMO. Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete I will remove Egypt president from infobox as that is not substantiated in any form. As for Egypt as supporter, I will improve that section soon FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A cursory look shows that most sources are not calling it a civil war yet. Here:
〜 Festucalex • talk 06:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 5 May 2023

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)[reply]

  • Oppose and procedural close. We already had this discussion before. Please read the previous move requests before opening a new one. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Sudan_(2023–present)&oldid=1153345356"