Talk:Sudanese civil war (2023–present)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Help with Timeline section & Timeline article

As discussed in #Split of "Timeline" section, the Timeline section of the article has become large enough to warrant a split- I have done such a split to the article Timeline of the 2023 Sudan conflict. I'd like to note that the new article needs to be expanded, and the Timeline section must be compressed, so if anyone could help me with those tasks, I'd appreciate it. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Presidentofyes12 second the idea. Go for it and I will support you FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Presidentofyes12 have a look to 2023 Sudan conflict#Timeline and let me know if the summary is good. Also section Reactions can be moved to an article to simialr to Reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@Tobby72 please see this discussion and the one here Talk:2023 Sudan conflict/Archive 1#Sock puppets - Extended confirmed protection in essence saying it is an allegation after credible sources reported on Wagner involvement is not acceptable. if you disagree you need to start with the Wagner section and not the infobox. denial by RSF is considered primary source FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@EkoGraf:, @FuzzyMagma:, @Pincrete:, @Presidentofyes12:, @Fenn Viktor:, FuzzyMagma claimed that "last consensus is not to include the word allegation or refused". – diff Your thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not remove your edit. I just made similar to other notes about supporting group. See this … FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any previous consensus was - but my own position is that all current 'supporters' should not be in the infobox as the nature/degree and certainty of their support is insufficiently established, but attributed text is OK. Though no one doubts that Wagner HAS provided material support in the past, there is insufficient certainty to say they continue to do so NOW. It seems especially 'iffy' to place Wagner under the Russia flag. If we have to add an 'alleged' to such claims, to me that is an indicator that the claim shouldn't be in the infobox nor in WP:VOICE anyway. Infoboxes are not places for nuance and adding 'refuted/denied' to poorly sourced and unclear accusations in an infobox seems like a 'cop-out' to me. Attributed text accommodates nuance far more easily. Pincrete (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Pincrete:. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tobby72 With the same logic, can we remove Libya too, as far as what is written in the text their support is also not clear FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma:. Done -- Diff -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ethopia

@Sanad real this is the talk page FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

oh ok i think that ethiopia should be included as a third belligerent because of their attack on the al fushqa district even though it was a relatively minor skirmish Sanad real (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

(Argument for support) If you look to the 2023 Sudan conflict#Ethiopia you will find this information mentioned along with Ethiopia’s denial. As both the source for the attack an denial can be considered WP:Primary sources thus they can be discussed but not included in the infobox

(Argument for belligerent) In addition, Ethiopia attack does not makes it a belligerent in this conflict which is between SAF and RAF. You can start a new page discussing the Sudanese-Ethiopian conflict,

But as far as this page goes, Ethiopia is not a belligerent, and by Wikipedia policy, it’s not a supporter either. FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sanad real Actually there is already an article about that, see Al-Fashaga conflict which can use some improvement FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

sudan is a primary source too and also that's why i wrote (ALLEGED,DENIED BY ETHIOPIA Sanad real (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yah that’s why is not included as supporter anyway. As belligerent - as you did - is not even to be considered as above argument. Please read what I wrote to the end and visit the links in my reply to familiarise yourself with things around here.

getting into a debate in your first 2 edits is not a good sign. Take a step back and educate yourself rather that trying to force your narrative. FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

i have read it already how about this

Ethiopia (alleged, denied by Ethiopia) (limited combat only in al fashaga region) Sanad real (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think you did. The reasons are given above when discussing adding Ethiopia as belligerent which you did not address FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

i have proof

On 19 April, the Sudanese newspaper Al-Sudani reported that the SAF had repelled an invasion by the Ethiopian Armed Forces in the disputed Al Fushqa District. The report alleged that the Ethiopian Army had carried out an attack with tanks, armored vehicles, and infantry and that the SAF had inflicted heavy losses on Ethiopian personnel and equipment. It said that the SAF was monitoring "unusual activity among the Ethiopian forces" since the start of hostilities with the RSF and that Ethiopian forces were carrying out intensive reconnaissance and surveillance operations along the border. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed denied that clashes had occurred, blaming agitators for the reports.

it clearly states from a primary source (sudan)that the SAF repelled and invasion by ethiopia even though abiy ahmed denies it Sanad real (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

do i just add ethiopia and continue this tomorrrow Sanad real (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

IMO this is very poor sourcing for the claim you wish to make - one would expect more international coverage if the claim were credible. WP putting it in as a fact and then saying it is denied is not a very good substitute for verifying its truth. It could possibly be mentioned as an attributed claim in text, but doesn't deserve to be in the infobox - which should be for reliably and widely established facts. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Sudani issued an apology for the confusion. Ethiopia involvement truned out to be a hoax! FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

ok i understand no more Ethiopia this is enough proof Me Sanad (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the discussion Me Sanad (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Me Sanad and @Sanad real creating a new account does not solve your problems, you are actually now in a worse position and your IP might get blocked. Please go to your User talk and apologise unreservedly for your mistake and ask to be unbanned. Once that is done please join one of the mentor program so someone can help you with familiarising yourself with policies and etiquette. The way you conduct yourself here can alone get you banned. You need to start to listen. This project is not about you or your opinion, it’s a collaborative work. Stay safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

ok thank you i will join your program just don't ban me please i really want to contribute to wikipedia Me Sanad (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

and again omani bro was just my brothers account Me Sanad (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I think it’s rich to assume that!

Within 5 edits, this account went to war, and became a socket puppeteer. Only took them 5 edits!

See above who brought them to the talk, go to their talk and see who talk to them and they decided just not to listen although they there were at odd with couple of policies and just basic human curtesy.

I think before coming by and throwing shade and an unsolicited advice, you should first do your due diligence. I did far more than what the policy recommended although I didn’t have too. I did not expect applauds but neither this FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I just saw them repeatedly trying to push a claim, which, yes, is not Wikipedia policy (or even good etiquette anywhere), but did not deserve a ban in my mind. I didn't notice the fact they switched accounts as the names were so similar, and in light of this, yes, your actions make way more sense. My bad, I apologize for misreading the situation. Chaotic Enby (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that and sorry for taking your comment a little bit personally

Anyway, this person actually had 4 accounts. And if you go to the contribution to their account it’s was very disruptive to start with

even when they were panned (not by me), I was the one advising them on how to get unbanned and learn from this experience (see my comment above)

I understand your sentiment (it was not easy journey for me to integrate), and I understand there is a need for editors focusing on these topics/regions but I really think I tried my best. They now have 2nd chance after 6 months, I hope they can make good use of it FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry too for reacting without seeing the whole picture! And thanks a lot for the support you gave, I really apologize for misunderstanding what happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I edit

Can I please edit something real quick I just need to change the duration of the war so far from 1 month to 1 month and 1 day 85.97.203.15 (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The date template used to keep track of the duration does this automatically. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

A better death toll estimate?

So, according to the artice, the death toll of the conflict is at least 1000, while the page dealing with the battle in Geneina claims that the death toll in West Darfur alone is as high as 2000. Shouldn't the former figure be updated? 79.164.45.230 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Pictures

I wonder if there are already usable non-map images for this article. It just feels different monitoring a conflict on Wiki without much pics. Borgenland (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I asked people to upload their own pictures of the conflict to commons using the tag "2023 Sudan conflict" so keep an eye there .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good after I get confirmed I will add images too Me Sanad (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Be aware that we cannot use copyrighted images (so for example we can't use most news images) . Pincrete (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

We definitely can use copyrighted images, as long as the images' copyright is compatible with intellectually free usage. See Commons:Commons:Licensing, e.g. The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag. It's true that most news images have copyrights that prevent them from being accepted on Wikimedia Commons. Boud (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian meddling

Russia is supporting the RSF. 2A02:3030:815:CA06:1:0:3C8A:794E (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Already mentioned in 2023 Sudan conflict#Wagner Group .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Map

There's a few errors in the map such as RSF fully controlling Nyala and Geneina which is false, and in general the shaded areas of control. Is there any plan to correct the map? Truecope (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Bit late on this but the map is hosted on commons so the proper place to discuss inaccuracies about the map would be at the commons talk page here .-FusionSub (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Change name to sudan war

At this point, the death toll appears to have climbed past 1000, which wikipedia's list of armed conflicts considers to count as a full scale war. There are several sources now referring to the conflict as a "war," such as the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/14/sudan-war-egypt-burhan-hemedti/

https://punchng.com/things-to-know-as-sudan-war-enters-one-month/

https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/05/15/alaskans-family-stuck-war-torn-sudan-humanitarian-crisis-continues/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65525006 209.214.231.30 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the cherry picking of articles, but even these sources call it Sudan conflict, see the last two items on your own list. heck! the last item says that on the title! FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"Things to know as Sudan war enters one month" sounds like they're calling it a war bud. I mean its right there in the title. And it's hardly cherry picked when war is a term that is being used more and more. I think you should learn what cherrypicking as a word means. 209.214.231.30 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The BBC page calls the 2023 conflict the "Sudan conflict", just like this article does; references to "wars" in that article refer to past events. If a multitude of reliable, secondary sources start primarily using the term "war", then we can change the name. Until then, there's nothing wrong with the title "Sudan conflict" as it's accurate and well-sourced. For as long as there's any question as to whether or not "War"/"Civil war" is the best descriptor, "conflict" will remain the better title.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think it's time to call it a war. Here are additional fresh sources that call it an actual war

[5]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/world/africa/sudan-war-military-scenarios.html

[6]https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/air-strikes-hit-khartoums-outskirts-sudans-war-enters-sixth-week-2023-05-20/ Hesham mohamed abd el moty (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

These are two reliable sources (although nyt is behind a paid wall) and I think we may soon need to have a move discussion as we did with previous names FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

They are not either of them referring to war as the main descriptor within the article - "One month since Sudan’s conflict erupted" … "as fighting that has trapped civilians in a humanitarian crisis and displaced more than a million entered its sixth week". Headlines don't count and are often shorthand. The present title is sufficiently clear for a situation that doesn't have a COMMONNAME as yet. What on earth is the obsession here with giving a more 'dramatic' name?Pincrete (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t a conflict be agression towards different militaries and a war being between formal entities? Technically, the Sudan conflict can be equated to an insurgency among a military? I see the conflict as fighting, and these militaries having control of areas, not governing them? Despite the talk, a war is a type of conflict? The Crisis in Darfur wouldn’t be considered a war. Degesh000 (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, civil wars for example are not always "between formal entities" . But from our point of view, we only call it a war when the majority of sources are doing so - when it becomes the WP:COMMONNAME. Pincrete (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

so the Sudan crisis remains a conflict, as sources he had shown are cherry picked.

Should we also take into account the importance of the source that states whether it is a war or a conflict, rather than majority first. Degesh000 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

WITHIN the text both quality and quantity of sources are in favour of the neutral 'conflict'. Headlines don't really count for various reasons and sources are not calling it the "ABCXYZ War as yet - ie a full title. That is normal, it takes a while for sources to see that the event has gone on long enough to need a title and for them to then settle on such a title. If it continues, is it going to be known as a war or a civil war or something else? We don't invent titles for historical events simply because sources haven't yet settled on one. Pincrete (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Therefore, it should remain a conflict. Degesh000 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The crisis in Sudan is no longer confined to a specific area, as was the case at the beginning of the confrontation between the Sudanese Army and the Rapid Support Forces; but has spread to wider geographical areas and has not been resolved in favor of either party. It is better to call it 2023 Sudan clashes because it describe the current situation because it has passed the crisis stage. Mr. JamesDimsey (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Better how? Better why? Is that what the majority of sources are calling it? IMO 'clashes' is vague. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Most sources say Sudanese conflict, and I've seen some that say that assert that it is not a civil war yet. 73.189.177.222 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Wagner Group involved

@FuzzyMagma and Tobby72:US treasury department asserts that Wagner Group has been suppling RSF with surface-to-air missile to fight Sudan's army.[7] In light of these news it's best to reinstate Russia under combatants of RSF. Ecrusized (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized added to the appropriate section first then please. And I’m airing on the side of leaving the infobox as it is. @Pincrete might also agree with that FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a ballot box, if reliable sources states that a country is providing arms to belligerents in an active conflict, users voting cannot prevent it from being included in the article infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, supplying with weapons doesn't make one a combatant, only those actually fighting are combatants. Secondly this source says nothing new: "Most recently in Sudan, the Wagner Group has been supplying Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces with surface-to-air missiles to fight against Sudan’s army, contributing to a prolonged armed conflict that only results in further chaos in the region." When is 'recently'? The most this proves is that (at some time recently), Wagner has sold SAM's to RSF, which we already record. Almost all weaponry in Sudan has been supplied by outside countries/suppliers - as Sudan does not produce arms . Whether - and how far - such supplying goes beyond purely commercial transactions isn't clear. I still think that while Wagner's (possible) involvement is properly rendered in text, it would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to put anything in the infobox as to the exact nature of their involvement. Pincrete (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

However, technically the Wagner Group is a private military, and two, supplying does not mean the wagner group or Russia is fighting the war. Me funding the SAF does not mean that I am a combatant. It should however, be mentioned of Wagner Group's role in the Sudanese conflict 73.189.177.222 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s mentioned 2023 Sudan conflict#Wagner Group FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is this not being classified as a civil war?

It’s basically the textbook definition 2601:148:380:330:D0AC:B8D3:7577:3D92 (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Because sources are not (yet?) calling it a civil war in the main. Often the term is reserved for more extended conflicts, but we don't decide whether it has met our - or anyone else's - definition, sources do. Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

SPLM-N

I added the SPLM-N on the infobox but there are some objections so feel free to discuss what should be done here. Borgenland (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Although the sources speak mainly of the army accusing them, and this being referred to in one source as " a faction of the … SPLM-N", I think the sourcing is just about strong enough to be included in infobox (and the main text expands the claim). Where you have placed them is also IMO correct, since they appear at the moment to be a third party taking advantage of the instability, rather than being allied to either main faction. Pincrete (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I just hope the map editors get a hold of this since I don't have any idea how to handle Wikimedia Commons. Borgenland (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland putting SPLM on RSF side is a pure WP:OR FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This is similar to what we had with Ethiopian and Egyptian involvement. I don’t think It’s “substantial” to warrant an infobox mention. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I did put a separate column for it. The edit you removed was made by another user. As regards to merits I believe it holds weight since this was not a one-off incident, unlike Ethiopia Borgenland (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland the article does not say that it “was not a one-off incident”. If you can fix that please FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, only the 21 June attack is mentioned FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ignore this. I see your point about multiple incidents on the same day and south of the country FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Since you reverted my edit <

can you please change south Sudan to South Kordofan, as these are not the same. And remove the refs from the lead as per MOS:LEDE FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Conflict or war?

Why is this still considered a "conflict"? Seems like a "war" to me. 2600:6C5C:6C7F:5E53:7477:DE4E:9DF5:981A (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Because sources are not (yet?) calling it a war in the main. Often the term is reserved for more extended conflicts, but we don't decide whether it has met our - or anyone else's - definition, sources do and when they do they will give it a name. Pincrete (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

A handful of sources are already calling it a war, including the New York Times: [8], [9], [10], [11] 2600:6C5C:6C7F:5E53:7477:DE4E:9DF5:981A (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Some of those are only using the word 'war' in the headlines, thereafter 'fighting', 'conflict' etc. Headlines don't really count for our purposes. None has really settled on a name for this 'war', so we'd be inventing a name for it. Even with NYT, uses a variety of nouns to describe the conflict. Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Genocide?

The are reports that the fighting in Darfur is becoming another genocide. Do any of you believe that it deserves an article of its own at this point? Borgenland (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Give me some sources (as I couldn’t find any, only Khamis Abakar claimed that) and I will add other battles and to the RSF section about human right violations and the Darfur war. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There has been an investigation by the ICC. No word of Genocide yet but they're focusing on Darfur. I might need help on renaming the section title though since it's a bit clumsy. Borgenland (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What should be included in the infobox

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose before adding information to the infobox that is not first included in the article and established as a key fact FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people who add disputed stuff to the infobox, don't usually read 'talk', but I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiment! Pincrete (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How do you middle align the casualties section? I had to refix it since someone had the bright idea of erasing the SPLM. Borgenland (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Casualties

The Casualties chapter is becoming outdated with respect to the location breakdown of Sudanese casualties with the exception of Darfur. I believe that it is time to rearrange and if necessary trim that part which I will start later. Borgenland (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Map

See this map I saw on a news site. Also posting this on Commons discussion: https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/more-people-killed-in-battles-in-el-obeid-and-sudan-capital Borgenland (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

Change "On 13 July, Egypt hosted a summit in Cairo, wherein the SAF, the RSF and leaders of Sudan's neighboring states agreed to a agreed to a new initiative to resolve the conflict." to "On 13 July, Egypt hosted a summit in Cairo, wherein the SAF, the RSF and leaders of Sudan's neighboring states agreed to a new initiative to resolve the conflict." Bigpoobles (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 19:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Map colors

As someone who's red-green colorblind, this might be one of the worst maps I've seen. Why can't more unique colors be used instead? 134.65.164.225 (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

you should post this on the file's talk page Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Move request

I think it's now time to call it a civil war, many sources are now calling this a civil war, theres also now 3 belligrants and it surpassed 10k of deaths

Change from "2023 Sudan Conflict" to "Third Sudanese Civil War" Lucasmota0975 (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Even if some sources are calling it a civil war some of the time, no source is calling it the Third, Fourth or Nth civil War any of the time. The proposed name is OR and neither COMMONNAME nor recognisable. Neither the number of deaths, nor of belligerents has any bearing on whether 'civil war' nor Nth civil War is the apt title.Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Pincrete + the nom doesn’t reference any policy or even include references or sources to where it’s been called the “Third Sudanese Civil War”.

PS: Sorry to say this as I am feeling like I am kinda breaching Wikipedia policy on articles ownership, but it feels like some people just read a few articles and come here to recommend a change in the title nevertheless. Do these people think that editors, who build and maintain this page, don’t actually read how the sources describe this event?! FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, I wouldn't be opposed to a Sudanese Civil War (2023-present) title or 2023 Sudanese Civil War or something similar, but no one is calling it the Third Sudanese Civil War. In addition I've also seen many sources talk about the risk of the conflict becoming a civil war, rather than the conflict being a civil war itself, so a name change to "civil war" may still not be warranted anyways - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 16:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - this is obviously now a protracted civil war, and sources are referring to it as such.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  But not even a single source is calling it the Third (or fourth or nth) Sudanese Civil War Pincrete (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 Sudan Civil War

With over 10,000 deaths [12] and numerous WP:RS calling it a civil war at this point, it unfortunately is one and thus should be classified as the 2023-Present Sudanese Civil War [13], [14]. Seeking consensus for name change to 2023-Present Sudanese Civil War (or a similar title). Dilbaggg (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the Fourth Sudanese Civil War will do. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The number of deaths isn't relevant - it's WP:COMMONNAME - ie what the majority of sources and therefore readers are calling this event. The only mention (apart from a headline) in either article of 'war/civil war' is "The United Nations has warned that Sudan could be on the verge of all-out-war"and " UNHCR meanwhile has warned that an "all-out civil war" could lead to the "destabilization" of the region". No one calls it the "Fourth Sudanese Civil War", so no reader would recognise the name. Just about every martial word is being used at present, sometimes 'war', sometimes 'fighting', sometimes 'conflict'. IMO the present title is clear and will suffice until a generally used name evolves. Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

These sources [15], [16], [17], hope you know how to click the 4, 5, 6 and read the sources . These are just three of many sources that have already called in a civil War. Conflict in Sudan has been going on since the 1960s, there were already three previous civil war and per WP:RS unfortunately a fourth has begun! Dilbaggg (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This started as a small anti-coup protests which begun being larger and after WP:RS considered it Myanmar civil war (2021–present) it has been named as such, the same should go for Sudan! Dilbaggg (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyways just at least see the three of many sources: [18], [19], [20] Dilbaggg (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw them and does not affect Pincrete point, i.e., what the majority of sources and therefore readers are calling this event? and it is really does not support your point of calling it the "Sudan civil was (2023-present)" .. please stop using provocative language as hope you know how to click, what that suppose to mean?! FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

sources 4 & 5 - (DW & CNN), as I've already said, above refer to the UN/UNHCR warnings of what this might lead to when they speak of 'civil war', they aren't using it to describe the present situation. I can't read TES ($£). But nobody anywhere is calling it the Fourth Sudanese Civil War and we don't name articles based on our own assessment of what the event logically should be called - which is what you are proposing. You are welcome to start a move discussion to a 'stronger' term if you wish, but you cannot make up names for a conflict/war/fighting, especially when it risks being less recognisable to the potential reader. Because there is no clear established 'name' at present, we are left with coming up with the most recognisable description of the current events. Just about every martial word is being used at present is sources, sometimes 'war', sometimes 'fighting', sometimes 'conflict' - ocassionally 'civil war', never AFAI can see "Nth Sudanese Civil war". I don't know about the Myanmar events, but maybe sources have settled on a name for what has happened there - IMO they haven't yet iro Sudan. Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

NB

You've posted the DW and CNN three times now and the TES one twice - the first two STILL don't call it a civil war and no one calls it the "Nth Sudanese Civil war".Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The 2021 Myanmar Conflict was gradually changed to Civil War as WP:RS started emerging, i am sure the same would be the case here, there are already many WP:RS that calls it a Civil War and it would be named as such. Perhaps 2023 - Present Sudanese Civil War, just like the current title 2023 Sudan Conflict has been "infered" rather than plagarised from the WP:RSs, lets wait and see but if more Wp:RSs emerges calling it a civil war it would have to be named as such, its not something i hope would happen but unfortunately it may go that way. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

If we were to do that, then I suggest we call it Third Sudanese Civil War. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@WikipedianRevolutionary I 100% agree. Also here is yet another source calling it a Civil war: [21] and there are more emerging. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The headline in AA calls it a civil war, within the article it consistently uses 'conflict'. There have been a few others like that already.Pincrete (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do many RS still not refer to it as a civil war? What does it possibly lack to fit its definition? Are some saying that it's a low-intensity conflict? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/africa/sudan-one-million-flee-un-intl/index.html

We have a CNN article now refereing to what is going on in sudan as a civil war. Honestly it was only a matter of time, but this page really needs to be updated to fit the current situation. We have multiple news arricles calling it a war, we have over 3,000 people dead in a four month old conflict, so why is this still being referred to as the "2023 sudan conflict"? That really seems to minimize what is actually going on in the country. I think it is more than fair at this point to call this the third sudanese civil war, and if some are still not comfortable calling a spade a spade, I would ask that this page at least be renamed the "2023 sudan war," instead of the "sudan conflict." What is going on in sudan is a war plain and simple. We all know that, and so do major news networks. 2602:306:CD04:62F0:FB99:21D9:B3F8:773B (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The severity of the fighting has no effect on whether WE call it a civil war and NO sources are calling it the Third Sudanese Civil War. Not one! Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

we have multiple sources calling it a war at this point. I told you before, it makes plenty of sense to just call it the 2023 Sudan War at this point. Exactly how long are we supposed to wait to change the name? Till everyone calls it the sudan war? So in a year if 99% of sources call it the sudan war but one article says "Sudan's fighting" or "sudan's conflict," is a conflict with tens of thousands of dead people still gonna be called "a conflict"?

Also you're not entirely correct about "not one" source calling it the third Sudanese civil war. In a strict sense that is true, but I just listed a source that called it "Sudan's civil war," and seeing as they had two others already, that implies it is the third one. 2602:306:CD04:62F0:61A0:A9E3:6380:9363 (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

And yet all you can dump for this discussion page is just one link. Borgenland (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, in no part of the UN report cited by CNN was the word civil war mentioned. Only a clickbait headline by CNN and an assumption by the same news org. Borgenland (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

https://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/sudan-situation-unhcr-external-update-22-8-14-august-2023 Borgenland (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I just listed a source that called it "Sudan's civil war," and seeing as they had two others already, that implies it is the third one. That's what we call WP:OR, if the sources thought that this was the Third Sudanese Civil War, they can probably count as well as you and would be calling it that by now.

It isn't un-common for a clear name to take a while to become established for an event, but we follow, not lead that process. Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be called the third or fourth Sudanese civil war I like third better though.

I heard some people call the aftermath of the second Sudanese civil war the third but I think it could also refer to this or you could call it the fourth but I think third is better I want to see what people think. HuntersHistory (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You could also just call it like the 2023 Sudanese civil war. HuntersHistory (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not the job of the editors to arbitrarily impose a name for this conflict. We only follow what the consensus of sources, once properly read beyond the headlines, say. See the prior discussions. Borgenland (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023

{ { félig védett szerkesztés | | válaszolt= nem } } { { subst:trim | 1 = Harmadik Szudánipolgárháború

.   

)

}} 31.46.139.165 (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not Magyar. Please submit your request in appropriate language. Borgenland (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023 (3)

--Totz matez (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Totz matez (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

See multiple prior discussions - no one is calling this event the "Third (nor fourth, fifth or nth) Sudanese civil war". Pincrete (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Move Request from "2023 Sudan Conflict" to "War in Sudan (2023)" or "Sudan War (2023)"

Due to major news organizations calling it a war. This includes: Reuters, AP, Washington Post, France 24, and many others. Also the amount of casualities and refugees exceed "conflict" level. CatmanBw (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

misplaced at Special:Permalink/1173250155 – robertsky (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Section title modified by 162.246.53.86 to add "Sudan War (2023)" CMD (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Burhan himself calls it a war. Make what you will of it. 47.54.109.218 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If nobody is opposed to this move and nobody presents evidence contrary to the move, I am gonna be making the move soon. If anyone is opposed to the move, then now is the time to say your opinion. CatmanBw (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@CatmanBw, I have reverted your move. You had tried to move to 2023 Sudan War, and that was reverted immediately by @Borgenland with rationale of 'reverting undiscussed move'. You then now move it to War in Sudan (2023), a similar name without establishing the necessary consensus with a proper requested move discussion that would see the move banner up on the article effectively making aware to all interested editors, as well as be listed at WP:RMC for the editors monitoring move requests. Do open a proper requested move discussion to establish the consensus. See the steps at WP:PCM. – robertsky (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia also encourages editors to be bold in fixing obvious mistakes. I will go through the step later since it is now been contested, but just so you know, by reverting to this outdated title with no actual reason other than technicality, you are blocking valuable up-to-date information from reaching readers. You are also preventing Wikipedia from being as up-to-date as possible, and you are wasting the community's valuable resources by delaying the inevitable (which is the renaming of this article, and it will 100% be renamed in the near future). CatmanBw (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

May you be warned that WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR. Such threats and accusations are unbecoming and unprofessional of editors in this community. Borgenland (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There was no threats anywhere in the comment. Where did you get this accusation from? I think you are the one presenting accusations here. WP:CRYSTALBALL refers to events that may happen. The event we are discussing here has already happened and it is in the past already. In addition, there is no original research here....the event has already happened according to the major international news organizations that I already mentioned. CatmanBw (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

To accuse others of Bad faith actions like blocking info, wasting resources and assuming 100% inevitabilities? That is quite speculative. Borgenland (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed your refs and found only one supporting you assertions of war. out of several. Borgenland (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone of bad faith. I have no doubt that the revert had good faith in mind. But I also think it's a waste of resources; one doesn't cancel the other out. CatmanBw (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

1. It would be incredibly helpful to put the links to the articles/sites you have mentioned.
2. amount of casualities and refugees exceed "conflict" level this is either original reporting or there should be a source backing this statement up as it can be seen as contentious to some.

– robertsky (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@User:CatmanBw I remember you did post the links prior to the move of the talk page. Could you send them again here so others can evaluate it too? Borgenland (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Here you go:

Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/sudans-burhan-heads-egypt-meet-president-sisi-statement-2023-08-29/

AP: https://apnews.com/article/sudan-war-military-rsf-egypt-da846603cfefaacb355d61fcddd446b0

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/africa/sudan-one-million-flee-un-intl/index.html

France 24: https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20230829-sudan-military-ruler-promises-victory-refuses-peace-deal-with-traitors

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/08/30/sudan-civil-war-atrocities-abuse/

VOA: https://www.voanews.com/a/after-4-months-sudan-war-stalemated-plagued-by-abuses/7220806.html

Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/15/sudans-war-after-two-months-what-you-need-to-know CatmanBw (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added the references. Also, "amount of causalities and refugees exceed conflict level" is not original research or speculation. It is according to Wikipedia's guidelines where an armed conflict with more than 1000 people killed is considered a war, and an armed conflict with more than 10000 deaths is considered a major war. Sudan's war is now at 4000-10000 deaths according to this Wikipedia article. You can see this criteria for classifying armed conflicts at List of ongoing armed conflicts. CatmanBw (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As per the rules, Wikipedia itself cannot be directly considered as a citation, but I see the points raised in the citations in that article. Borgenland (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup. So what I was trying to say is: I made the move with the backing of the evidence I had presented in this discussion so far. My opinion is that at this point, the title of the article is obviously outdated. I have made the bold move based on exactly that. CatmanBw (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Just directly cite the exact source for future incidents of this kind. Borgenland (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

And if any renaming of a contentious topic that precludes a WP:BOLD will happen, it will only be when the community makes a discussion and not someone’s own whims. Borgenland (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You see it as a waste of community resources, I see it as establishing a new consensus that puts to rest arguments of where the article should be titled, especially when there have been numerous prior discussions about moving the article, be it formal RM requests or informally like this. – robertsky (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The numerous prior move requests happened under completely different circumstances where the renaming of the article was rightfully contested. I see no potential for contesting the renaming of the article now if it was to be broadly discussed. CatmanBw (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Would like to note that this "discussion" was closed after less than two days being open, with no requestedmove tag placed in the article or posted at requested moves. Seems like a quick move given the contentious move requests this article has had recently. Yeoutie (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with this. At this point its clearly not a conflict, but its a war. Lukt64 (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Numbers

Please also update the refugee and casualty numbers in the body, not just in the infobox and introduction to ensure that this article is always up to date. Borgenland (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 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: Moved to War in Sudan (2023). This appears to be the title supported by the majority of editors. There was also some support for inclusion of "civil war" in the title. However based on other similar move discussions I'm aware of, the description of a conflict as a "civil war" is something we don't generally do without (several) sources. Reading through this discussion, I see no sources provided to describe this (in its current state) as a civil war. If any editor can provide sources to support the inclusion of "civil war", I would encourage a separate move discussion for simplicity's sake(closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudan war – As raised by CatmanBw, recent reporting by major international news organisations are moving to reporting this issue as a war rather than just a conflict. Aljazeera, VOA, Washington Post, France24, CNN, AP, Reuters. Indepedently searching for news using 'Sudan conflict' shows further reporting as 'war' or a mix of both: Aljazeera 2, France24 2, both of which are more recent articles. – robertsky (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for for considering my point of view. CatmanBw (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Alternate proposed titles are:

• War in Sudan (2023)
• Sudan War (2023)

– robertsky (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: I have already presented my argument in the discussions above under: Move Request from "2023 Sudan Conflict" to "War in Sudan (2023)" or "Sudan War (2023)". The title that I would personally choose is: War in Sudan (2023)

However, I am willing to compromise as long as the title indicates that this armed conflict is now a war. CatmanBw (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I oppose any name that has a 2023 in parenthesis. It feels a bit clunky unless the war reaches next year. Otherwise I won't mind but I prefer 2023 comes first in any title. Borgenland (talk) Borgenland (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That's only to distinguish it from the other Sudanese Wars CatmanBw (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: Nevermind, I just read your updated comment. CatmanBw (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

A reason why I am reluctant to call it Sudan War and went with Sudan war is that there isn't strong evidence in it being a proper noun in the news content body. – robertsky (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. CatmanBw (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: I too would personally choose War in Sudan (2023). Kind regards, IrrationalBeing (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think this is about your personal choice, then you’re definitely missing the point FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think he meant to say that he would choose that title based on the evidence presented here. CatmanBw (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No they didn’t. They said “would personally choose” .. not whatever twist you’re trying to imply. FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What they say and what they mean aren't always the same thing. We can assume that the person has read the evidence presented here. CatmanBw (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice to meet you “mind reader”. Unless this account is yours, then please stop. They can answer for themselves and explain what they mean, if they want. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not a mind reader but it's highly likely that the person who commented have seen the list of sources that was posted since they commented under it. Anyways, you can have it your way. I won't be replying to anymore of your comments. CatmanBw (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks CatmanBw for explaining what I meant. Regards, IrrationalBeing (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

No problem. You're welcome. CatmanBw (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Support. War in Sudan (2023) solves the issue of war in the title while staying under WP:COMMONNAME. Jebiguess (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to "2023 Sudanese civil war" or "Sudanese civil war (2023)" - It's a civil war, not just a simple war.

188.26.140.113 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: Please don't just give alternatives without supporting evidence that the event is being referred as such in recent sources. – robertsky (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

1.

2. 188.25.122.194 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This is already discussed and failed to pass so either go up and reactivate the discussion or start a new one. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Weak support to “2023 Sudan war” .. weak because some sources call it a conflict e.g., BBC (consistently using “Sudan conflict”), Aljazeera, France24, and Arab News. PS: For others who wants to suggest a different name, kindly do it somewhere else so not to clutter this discussion FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is an article from The Guardian that was published today calling it a war also:(The Guardian) CatmanBw (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, here is an article from the BBC calling it a war: (BBC) Quote from the article beyond the headlines: "Some reports say this is the most intense fighting since the beginning of the war in April." CatmanBw (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t. See the title as we are discussing how the fighting is named. If that is your criteria then the article should be “Sudan fighting” FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

We have to read beyond the headlines to figure out names for events. We can't rely on the headlines alone. I thought that was known already. CatmanBw (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

By “figure out names” you mean OR? Because we are trying to establish what it’s called. Title is one of the important aspects of how events are called. When you google something you use the “succinct” terms that describes the event. You don’t type “event where millions of jewish people were killed during WW II”, you type “the holocaust”, you don’t type “Sudan fighting that broke in April 2023” you type what you see as a succinct way to describe an event that is normally used by media, wether that is Sudan conflict, fight, civil war or war is why we are discussing this not because how you lift a paragraph from an article. I am glad you didn’t make the nom for this discussion nom because it would have failed immediately FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Anyways, I am not interested in arguing for the sake of argument. Since you already stated that you support describing the event as "2023 Sudan war", I think it's pointless to keep discussing this. I was just hoping to give you more evidence on why it's the right decision since you only weakly support the move. CatmanBw (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, this source says Since fighting broke out between the regular army and.. FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Read the BBC article carefully. It calls the event a war in this quote: "Some reports say this is the most intense fighting since the beginning of the war in April." CatmanBw (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Since you are still in doubt, I'm gonna present another reliable international news organization that is calling this event a war. Here is an article from DW: https://www.dw.com/en/no-hope-for-peace-as-war-in-sudan-intensifies/a-66203520 CatmanBw (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Support War in Sudan (2023). I would’ve preferred “Sudanese civil war (2023)” but all sources are currently calling this a war, rather than a civil war. 78.170.149.233 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Support Third Sudanese Civil War, the death toll is escalating rapidly, I see no reason why we should not do it. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support War in Sudan (2023) - Originally I supported a change to Sudanese civil war (2023), but sources do not define it as a "civil war", just a "war". Also, I haven't seen anybody calling the war "Sudan war", so I guess "War in Sudan (2023) is the best choice.

UkraineFella (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Support Sudanese Civil War, widely being called a civil war on msm recently. Ecrusized (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support "Sudan War (2023)"—the majority of online sources classify it simply as a "war" rather than a civil one. Since Wikipedia's primary purpose is to follow the general consensus of other newspapers and journals, it's easier to make the argument of "Sudan War" rather than "Third Sudanese Civil War" or "Sudanese Civil War (2023)." Sources include: NYT, WP, DW. Until there are more sources calling this a full-blown Civil War, best keep it simply as Sudan War. - MateoFrayo (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Most sources do not capitalize war, per MOS:CAPS. UkraineFella (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're correct, and "Sudan war (2023)" works just as well—my main point is that we need to note that this has gone from a "conflict" stage to a "war" stage. - MateoFrayo (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support a move to War in Sudan (2023). A lot of sources are calling this a war now instead of just a conflict, so it makes sense to call it that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Mild Support. I think we should be patient. -CaeserKaiser (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support some form of "civil war" title as it is a civil war GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:34, 14 September 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.

Unclassified incident

In an article on looting (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66637454) residents of Omdurman mention an undated fire at a perfume factory killing 120 people while it was being looted during the conflict. As this is a mass casualty incident, I'd like to add this but am not sure to which section. Any suggestions? Borgenland (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Move

The paged wasn’t moved to War in Sudan (2023) at all. UkraineFella (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@UkraineFella The page can only be moved by an administrator, hence the delay in the page move until an administrator swings by. The page has since been moved after a WP:RM/TR request was filed to have an administrator to look into this. – robertsky (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Just finished moving associated pages. But I think I ran into a redirect error after moving the template campaign box. Borgenland (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

What error? I may be of help on this. – robertsky (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to edit the campaign box in the main page since the box title doesn't wikilink and when I tried to edit it the code merely said redirect. Borgenland (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And it seems I have two sets of templates on my watchlist called Template:War in Sudan (2023) and Template:Campaignbox War in Sudan. Borgenland (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the issue at Template:Campaignbox War in Sudan (2023). – robertsky (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think that articles should be move to "X in the war in Sudan (2023)" or "X in the 2023 war in Sudan" (WP:NATDAB), given that sources do not called the war as the War. – robertsky (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Basically did the same thing in the Timeline and humanitarian crisis page. Not sure if I missed anything else. Borgenland (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright. UkraineFella (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

add Sudan Liberation Movement - Nur to the map

https://sudantribune.com/article277603/ Lukt64 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2023

under foreign involvement–ukraine, 'where behind' should be changed to 'were behind'. Tsukayamaj (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Sudan Tribune archival blocked?

There's something odd about the Sudan Tribune references. Most (if not all) are marked as permanent dead links, but when I click through them they seem to work. I tried using a USA proxy site, that worked too. However, the wayback machine/archival website doesn't seem to be capable of viewing or saving them properly, claiming it's been blocked. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I thought it'd be something prudent to point out if it hasn't been already. Silverleaf81 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Should i change the map to have the Rapid Support forces be Blue?

I would like for it to be colorblind accessible Lukt64 (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal WikipediaNerd12345 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

please go for it. Wikipedia should be accessible. I see you have tried but maybe try the same colours as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. RSF can be yellow (similar to their uniform) and Green is for SAF FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with it being colorblind friendly, but please keep the territories that are disputed between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces as red and blue, to be more accurate and also because that what people complain about. HuntersHistory (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be considered a Civil War?

It seems like nobody is invading, so wouldn't it be a Civil war? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the last move discussion, reliable sources do not consistently describe the conflict as a "civil war" enough to justify its usage. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Move to 2023 War in Sudan

I feel like this is more consistent with outdated battle articles, and also closer to the old name "2023 Sudan Conflict" Lukt64 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 2023

War in Sudan (2023) → Sudanese Civil War (2023) – This is a months-old conflict and is beginning to escalate again. Its time to call it a civil war. Lukt64 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 1023 (UTC)

changing "part of " in the infobox

Hi @Parham wiki, I see you changed War in Sudan (2023) to Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War (likely) and first and second Sudanese civil war to Arab–Israeli conflict. Maybe they are but surely they are more part of Sudanese Civil Wars. I am not sure if you are claiming that these wars were the results of Russo-Ukrainian War or the Arab–Israeli conflict because they are not. Foreign forces may interfered but they were not the cause so can you please amend your edit FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Parham wiki (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Map is to be updated

Nyala battle has concluded with RSF seizing full control of the city. The current map does not indicate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 08:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Death toll

As of October, we now have a definite minimum toll of 9,000 as confirmed by the UN and relevant government agencies. I believe it is time to take off the minimum 4,000 range in the infobox and wherever else it is mentioned. Borgenland (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 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 (non-admin closure). There is a consensus against the proposed title as "Third" is unsupported by the sources. There was no consensus on whether the article should have some variant of "Civil War" in the title so no prejudice against a new RM with e.g. Sudanese Civil War (2023), 2023 Sudanese Civil War, etc. as a proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

---

War in Sudan (2023) → Third Sudanese Civil War – Multiple news outlets like The Guardian and the BBC have called it a Civil War, this is a months-old conflict and is beginning to escalate again. Its time to call it a civil war. Lukt64 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support. But I think I can fully support if it reaches next year, making the current title moot. Borgenland (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no end in sight. I dont see peace being reached in 2023. Lukt64 (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you post the relevant sources for further discussion? Borgenland (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

sorry not bbc, cnnhttps://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/humanitarian-crisis-as-5m-displaced-by-civil-war-in-sudan

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/16/africa/sudan-one-million-flee-un-intl/index.html Lukt64 (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weakly Oppose, but if there is to be a move to a title containing "Civil War", then I'd support Sudanese Civil War (2023), to be updated to Sudanese Civil War (2023–present) if the conflict extends into 2024.

Surprisingly few sources refer to the present conflict as the Third Sudanese Civil War, with more using the term to describe the early stages of the Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. And still, many sources are still considering it just a "war" rather than "civil war".

• The war in Sudan is a consequence of a derailed transition
• UN aid chief says six months of war in Sudan has killed 9,000 people
• How Sudan’s forgotten war is being fought
• "Sudan’s army and rival paramilitary force resume peace talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia says" describes conflict as a "war" rather than a civil war, although calling it a conflict in the title.

Calling it a civil war in the title isn't fully backed by sources as of now but it makes sense. Just, Sudanese Civil War (2023) is a more accurate representation than Third Sudanese Civil War. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 16:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lukt64 can you link the sources that you said uses the "Third Sudanese Civil War"? BBC and Guardian you said FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Loook above. Lukt64 (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think at this rate the word civil war is slightly more acceptable. The real issue is whether this conflict should be numbered if we are to base it on sources. Personally I wouldn’t expect a press with short-term memory to resolve this issue. Probably some books and studies that are years away from publication. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

the use of the "Third" is more of WP:CONSISTENT but we need to establish commonality first which I cannot see, although I agree, it is a civil war FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Third Sudanese Civil War is WP:SYNTH-ing a name, as the SPLM-N insurgencies could also easily be called a third civil war. However, Sudanese Civil War (2023) works well. I don't see much reason to change it from War in Sudan however, as most sources switch between civil war and war in Sudan. Jebiguess (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The only original research I did was a 10 minute google search Lukt64 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand. What I'm trying to say is that Wiki goes by what reliable sources say - for a while this page was the 2023 Sudan conflict simply because we were waiting for people to call it a war despite full-on battles in Khartoum and genocides in Geneina. We don't wanna be the first ones to call it the Third Sudanese Civil War just because it sounds right because then articles will call it the Third Sudanese Civil War due to our rename. By renaming it that, it also skips over the SPLM-N insurgency, which was pretty huge although little is written about it here. Jebiguess (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: I am not personally against the name, but most sources I'm coming across are still calling it a war. "Civil war" seems to be less common. CatmanBw (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Third" appears to be invented. I have no opinion on something like 2023 Sudanese Civil War, which would be my suggestion if there's a desire to have "civil war" in the title. SnowFire (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Heres another source that called it a civil war https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HlyaIaI81E Lukt64 (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Other sources calling it a civil war are:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/09/sudan-civil-war-humanitarian-crisis/
• https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/10/after-six-months-civil-war-whats-state-play-sudan

Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose:

1. Said sources do not call it "Third Sudanese Civil War". See WP:OR
2. As @Presidentofyes12 pointed out, there are sources that don't call it a civil war.
3. There are widespread reports of foreign involvement in this war, so it cannot be called a civil war unless it is widely called a civil war like the Syrian civil war.

Parham wiki (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support We don't want to be massively late to the punch again like we were with Ethiopia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:E5FD:89C0:407C:4789 (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That must be the worst reason for support. FOMO should not be a justification. This vote must be dismissed FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

SupportAlthough not so many sources call it "Third", its tecnically pretty much a continuation of the previous two wars, just diffrents groups at this time, and many sources are calling it a civil war, not a third, but still a civil war. Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As many other users have mentioned, not alot of sources call this a civil war. As per SnowFire, "Third" seems invented. Yxuibs (talk) 01:57, 11 November 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.

Protection request

Could you add protection to this article for edit warring? UltimateFantasyY (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think only registered users should be able to edit it, that was just... wow. Lukt64 (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It's one person, and it's vandalism, not edit warring. We don't protect pages because of one person. They've been blocked. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Still, its on the front page and normally stuff this important would at least have SOME restriction on it.. Lukt64 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. UltimateFantasyY (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That's what I meant. UltimateFantasyY (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I support at least pending changes protection and potentially semi protection for this page, because this is a large-scale and ongoing armed conflict, in order to deter vandalism and edits from unregistered & new users. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Since the Darfur Alliance joined the SAF in war, should we put them and the SAF in one group in the map, as "Sudanese armed forces and allies"?

the Darfur Alliance joined the SAF in war, should we put them and the SAF in one group in the map, as "Sudanese armed forces and allies"? Ghmrsudan (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

East Darfur map change

After the capture of Ed Daein this week, the state of East Darfur was also captured fully. Could we change the map to show those recent changes? 2601:183:4281:9CD0:C54D:31AF:25B4:3B6B (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

For issues or requested updates with the map the proper place to do so is on its wikimedia commons talk page as it is hosted on commons rather than wikipedia.-FusionSub (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably."

I think that the "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably." should be considered resolved as there is enough subheading to make the entire article more easily to digest. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge "Peace efforts" into "Course of the war"

Having an entire separate section on peace efforts doesn't make much sense to me, because efforts to achieve peace have not been separate from the actual fighting and as a result the 'Peace efforts' section has become bloated with one-sentence paragraphs that do not really belong in the article per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and which has also given the article far too many section titles that clog up navigation. I reckon that the Treaty of Jeddah (2023) and any subsequent important negotiations can be far better covered in the Course of the war section. Thoughts? Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I agree. Now that the section in question has become quite stale. Borgenland (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 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: moved. Per consensus, move to War in Sudan (2023–present). – robertsky (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• War in Sudan (2023) → War in Sudan (2023–present) –

or * B: War in Sudan (2023) → War in Sudan
or * C: War in Sudan (2023) → Sudanese civil war (2023–present)
or * D: War in Sudan (2023) → Sudanese civil war
or * E: War in Sudan (2023) no change (You can add other name suggestions if you think that it is appropriate)
With almost a week left for this year to end, I think it is about time we start the discussion for renaming this article (Admins please don't move the article before 1/1/2024)
Bremps... 04:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Option A preferably, otherwise option B. This isn't a big change, just accounting for the fact the war will most likely continue into 2024. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

B Saying that its not a civil war by now is outright false, and more media outlets are using civil war. Lukt64 (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment, if we are going to call it a civil war we will have to call it the Third Sudanese Civil War, as First Sudanese Civil War and Second Sudanese Civil War already exist. I would support such a change, as "War in Sudan" is an incredibly clunky term that is impossible to use well within the article, and most reliable sources have been calling this a civil war for months. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Not Third Sudanese Civil War, that term is actually used more to refer to the Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile than it's used to refer to this present conflict. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 21:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

A, unless sources are constantly using "civil war" to describe the conflict (which they're not, afaik) - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 21:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

A or B probably; but A would be a lot better TheLibyanGuy (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Needless fiddling. Wait for 2024 sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: wait for 2024 or use "Sudan conflict" (maybe "Sudan war") as it been used by the [BBC consistently] and does not have an year issue FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. 2024 is here and the war is still ongoing, article name needs an update. - Creffel (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with option A being best for now I think, for the same reasons as above. It's 2024 now and there are sources to show it is continuing. MariahKRogers (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support A until such time as the war aquires a widely used name among journalists or historians. Babakathy (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support A, weaker support for C. Apologies, my phone keyboard doesn’t allow straight quotes. Borgenland (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2024 (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.

SPLM-N captured Dilling

i cant edit very well on a phone, just wanted to tell you all.https://sudantribune.com/article281102/ Lukt64 (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Also mentioned it in Timeline. Tho it's naming convention in wiki is Dalang. Borgenland (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Per Al Jazeera, owned by Qatar, the SAF is cracking down on pro-democracy activists.

I'm not quite sure where to incorporate this information, but here's the link: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/9/sudans-army-is-retaliating-against-activists-amid-the-war-for-their-role-in-bringing-down-their-former-boss-and-president-omar-al-bashir-in-april-2019

Al Jazeera is state-owned media, but for they're been relatively impartial for this topic (2023-present War in Sudan). They're not impartial with respect to the 2023 Israel-Hamas War, which is unsurprising as Qatar harbors the leaders of Hamas. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we change the title to Third Sudanese Civil War yet?

This clearly isn't a short post-coup conflict anymore 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:ACAC:6FC7:C632:32DE (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No sources are calling it THIRD. The civil war is more plausible but there is still no consensus. Borgenland (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Its not a civil war its a conflict between the paramilitary and the country SDUpdates32349 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Civil war. "war between organized groups within the same state". So it very much is a civil war. Risa123 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-67438018 (One source that started to call it a civil war) SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

“Third Sudanese Civil War” is a proper historic name which we haven’t heard yet, “Sudanese civil war (2023–present)” sounds more plausible 78.171.40.184 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024 analysis by German political scientist Hager Ali

The latest analysis of February 2024 by German political scientist Hager Ali, writing for the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, may be useful for updating recent events of the war in Sudan. - It is an Open Access publication and can be read on the Internet and downloaded free of charge at www.giga-hamburg.de/en/publications/giga-focus. According to the conditions of the Creative-Commons license Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0, this publication may be freely duplicated, circulated, and made accessible to the public, but NOT be copied for Wikipedia. Munfarid1 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have summarized this article in the new section /Critical_reception/ - I imagine that there must be several more such analyses... Munfarid1 (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Elephant Trunk Revolution?

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.

---

A civil war, being a part of the so-called Elephant Trunk Revolution 94.25.185.191 (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE, particularly since the term you insist is not used by a consensus of reliable and non-obscure sources. Not a lot of articles on the Sudanese Revolution even use the term. Borgenland (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

An article by a Professor at the Universidad Internacional de La Rioja is surely an example of an obscure source? We should mention, that it is rarely used (mainly in Spanish and French) to help one to search more information. 94.25.185.191 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.185.191 (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In the context of this entire thing, it is, especially if said professor is virtually alone in asserting that it is so. Furthermore, a simple search on keywords shows a gaping lack of usage of you neologism. And it is the primary responsibility of the initially editor to make changes that could stand scrutiny, not passing it to others if it is a bit murky. Borgenland (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, practically all well-known political terms tend to be a bit murky. Compare it to the so-called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution . 94.25.185.191 (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

But the Tunisian Revolution is based on widely used and reliable sources. Yours are so far against wide consensus, which does not help provide even a veneer of legitimacy for this current murky argument. Borgenland (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Revolution of Dignity and Jasmine Revolution is still a very instable term, the Arabic version uses ثورة الحرية والكرامة (Revolution of Liberty and Truth/Dignity) and no jasmine at all, Spanish version adds the Intifada de idi Bouzid, in Russian version you can find even the Финиковая революция (the Date Revolution). Many of them even don't have any academic source or just have some obscure articles connected, as someone said. Should we remove all of them? I don't know. 94.25.185.191 (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

But this is primarily English Wikipedia, which has conventions separate from that of other language Wikipedias. A mere importation cannot just happen unless you can have counterpart sources that can support your non-English sources. Borgenland (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I speak also on the terms in the English version. You could say that Amira Aleya-Sghaier and Mabrouka M'Barek are obscure authors from not very prestigious high schools and their articles couldn't be used as reliable sources. It's a bit strange, isn't it? 94.25.185.191 (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

But that is beside the point. The fact is their terms had been widely accepted in English wiki for years, whereas yours suddenly sprouted in this here for a considerably shorter amount of time. What is even more disingenious is that your 2nd French language source was published a year before the war broke out, and you have done an incredible WP:SYNTH fallacy to link the conflict, which does not even mention the word elephant in the body.

You have also misconstrued my arguments into a snobbery of alma maters when in fact it is the reliability and consensus usage of sources and mediums in which they were broadcast that was in question. Finally, you are treading into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which I should have pointed out the moment you mentioned the word Tunisia. Borgenland (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Finally, since you are so keen on insisting the conflict as part of a revolution that is not generally known by that name, I wonder why you chose not to raise this argument first in the Sudanese Revolution, given your tendency towards WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Had you successfully made your case there, I'm sure nobody would have objected to this edit of yours here. Borgenland (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's another revolution, what we are speaking about is 2021 Sudanese coup d'état and its consequences. If you like, add it to this article. But if we tend to unite these processes into one massive revolution, one must create another article, like 2018–2026 instable situtation in Sudan (Elephant Trunk Revolution). 94.25.185.191 (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It it your responsibility since you came up with it. And the fact remains that no consensus of sources even refers to it as a pachyderm revolution even in the 2021 article. Borgenland (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that this term is UNDUE, no analysts that frequently cover the conflict, news organisations or the sides in the war use this term. As far as I can tell the only individual or does is this one random professor at a not very prestigious Spanish university. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone confused things and translate Khartoum literally [to Elephant Trunk]. See Khartoum#Etymology FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not found any reliable source describing or portraying the War in Sudan (2023-present) as the Elephant Trunk Revolution. I oppose any use of the term until such sources are provided. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)*

References

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.

Assistance in invasion(s) summaries

I have recently created and began working on the List of invasions in the 21st century. Obviously, this invasion and offensives amid the invasion are included in the list. I have a few short summaries already listed in the chart, but I would appreciate if anyone who is familiar with the invasion wants to help out. My current thought process is that anything significant related to the invasion/offensive needs to be mentioned in the summary. So, if anyone wants to help out, feel free to work on, improve, or completely rewrite the summaries in that list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

not sure its an invasion, its an internal conflict Bird244 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Updates?

I happened to notice that this page was being considered for addition to the in-the-news section of the main page (here). The main sticking point seems to be the lack of substantive additions to this entry in April (the timeline article is said to be just one line per day, while this -- considerably more substantive -- entry is said not to have enough updates). Those who work on this page might want to see if there are any developments that warrant addition as the conflict is passing the one-year mark. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Russia or Wagner?

Ever since Prigozhin's death, Wagner has grown closer and closer to the Russian government and is now under direct oversight of the Russian National Guard, and all members have to sign their allegiance to the Russian government. I think we can just put Russia in the list of state supporters instead of Wagner as a non-state supporter. Game2Winter (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wagner is largely independent from the Russian government in africa. Ukraine is a different story, but Wagner is its own thing in africa. Lukt64 (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Government

How long has the government been actively involved in the War in Sudan? Initially, the article mentioned only the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. This seams to be the edit that changed the info-box. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This is most likely in reference to the SAF being otherwise described as forces loyal to the current Sudanese regime.

It's rare for military factions alone to make up "Belligerents" since they best fit into "Units involved." The Yemeni civil war infobox lists the opposing military factions as bullet points under their respective administrations (Republic of Yemen/Yemeni Armed Forces; Supreme Political Council/Houthis). Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Map update

the map needs to be updated to show the Wad Madani offensive

i would do it but im lazy Lukt64 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen any major updates from Sudan War Monitor in Gezira state, including the counteroffensive to retake Wad Madani. I think the current map is still fine. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I would second what JohnAdams1800 stated. Has there been any significant changes which would justify updating the map showing significant changes in the offensive? Jurisdicta (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe so. There is reportedly an RSF offensive in Al-Fashir (El Fasher) in North Darfur, but I haven't read of any major changes in territorial control. The SAF has gained control of Omdurman, but has not taken back control of Gezira state or the capital city of Khartoum. Similarly, the RSF has not appeared to take significant amounts of territory in recent months. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2024

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: moved. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

---

War in Sudan (2023–present) → Sudanese civil war (2023–present) – The conflict is a civil war and this has become the most common name used, sources are such as Sky News: [22] (It’s in the title.) BBC News: [23] “… of the year-long Sudanese civil war” Independent: [24] “… during a year-long civil war“ CNN: [25] “Sudan has been gripped by civil war since April 2023”. 78.170.144.248 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 78.170.144.248 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree! MasterOpel 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Plus, the article states, "A civil war between two rival factions of the military government of Sudan, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) under the Janjaweed leader, Hemedti, began during Ramadan on 15 April 2023." MasterOpel 21:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The Article names the war as a civil war numerous times, and I believe the rename is an accurate description of the war, and it also shares the perspective that the article seems to have. 67.60.68.232 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Modified support for Third Sudanese Civil War (2023-present), as Sudanese Civil War is a disambiguation page that already mentions the First Sudanese Civil War and Second Sudanese Civil War. This armed conflict is a civil war, but it's the third major one in a country that has been repeatedly characterized by internal conflict. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The first and second civil wars are actually named that in multiple reliable sources, so no need for the word “Third” if it’s not mentioned in sources. We can move the dab page to Sudanese Civil Wars or Sudanese Civil War (disambiguation) FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is truly a third sudanese civil war. However, we need to use the most common name when referring to wikipedia’s policies, no source seems to give this conflict the historical name “third sudanese civil war”. Therefore it wouldn’t be valid to move it to that, rather we should move it to Sudanese civil war (2023–present). 78.170.144.248 (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

good call FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support: There is no doubt it's a civil war and the current title isn't all that encompassing about the reality Waleed (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Support as now multiple sources are calling it a civil war. Lukt64 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support but would hold off on placing numerologies pending an actual source that describes it. Borgenland (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support

The war has been going on for a year now, and many sources are now calling it a civil war.

BigRed606 (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Not opposed if it lends clarity, but worth noting that the sources given above use civil war as a description, rather than as a specific name for this event. CMD (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. "War in X" is typically used here for interstate wars (see War in Afghanistan (2001-2021), War in Donbas, and War in Somalia (2006-2009)). War in Darfur and War in the Vendée are the only pages that seem to deal with civil wars (although War in Abkhazia (1992-1993) could be argued to also be one). At any rate, "War in X" makes more sense when describing the geographical location of the war. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. War in [country] is barely used on Wikipedia, and it is rarely used to refer to a civil war. "Civil War" is far more common. Game2Winter (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per sources provided above. I would note that most major sources referred to this event as the "war in Sudan" (or some variation, see this discussion) in the months following its outbreak, so it doesn't really matter what Wikipedia named different wars in that instance. Also, oppose Third Sudanese Civil War until proof is provided that sources are calling it such. Yeoutie (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support, though also open to Third Sudanese Civil War Might I ask what the standard is for whether you count something from scratch or number it? Growing up I read it usually had to do with whether or not one directly lead to another, like how the First Balkans War caused the Second One. That's how historians who named things would do it. So this would absolutely count as Third.

I really hope it isn't what the Media specifically is using because the bulk of them suck at getting details right when it comes to African conflicts.

Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2024 (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.