Talk:Darfur conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Darfur conflict has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject.

GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	African military history task force

Darfur conflict is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Socsci.

	To-do list:	edit · history · watch · refresh
"Main points of the deal" - I have added Link 68, which talks in details about the main points of the deal. Please add the important points in the main text. It is too long, may be it can be included as a sub-category.Indrajitneogi 18:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of the Sudan WikiProject.

Archives Archive1

[edit] Marginal view at top of page

I removed the following statement from the top (summary) of the article:

There is becoming a view amoung some left wing personalities such as George Galloway that recent media coverage of the conflict is motivated by oil imperialism as the Sudan government has done deals to sell its oil to China, however this is disputed by many across the political spectrum.

This is mentioned later in the article, and because it seems to be the view of a very small number of people, I don't think it belongs in the general summary. (It was also inserted before the reference for the item which preceded it, so it was in the wrong place anyway.)

I'm willing to be convinced that this is needed at the very top, however I think if it were included it would need to be in some more concise form, such as:

Some commentators believe media coverage of Darfur is presented through the lens of "oil imperialism," though this is disputed by many across the political spectrum.

However, even that statement would not flow from the preceding one, and I'm not sure exactly where it would go in that summary -- which makes me think it doesn't really have a place there. ivan 12:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Is there anything an average American civilian can do to aide the peackeeping efforts? -69.67.234.48 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of advocacy organizations doing Darfur work listed at Bibliography of the Darfur conflict. - BT 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reports of slavery

The new section Reports of slavery is problematic. It is largely about Southern Sudan. There is very little tying the Darfur conflict in and it neglects to state that the Darfuris historically captured slaves from the south as well. If it isn't removed, the section really needs to be tightened up to focus on Darfur. - Banyan Tree 13:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. This source mentions black Muslims from Darfur being recruited to help the genocide in southern Sudan, but that really doesn't tie in sufficiently to this article. I obviously didn't do my research well enough. If anyone wants to see what we're talking about, the removed content is here. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I should probably merge my content to Slavery in Sudan and possibly Second Sudanese Civil War somehow. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about this?

The Sudanese government has signed a peace deal with the eastern rebels. [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Télapó (talk • contribs) on 15 October 2006.

Different conflict, with similar underlying causes. - Banyan Tree 13:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have recently seen - several times - an ad on TV about Darfur. The ad seems to be pushing for action - it doesn't say which side etc. My main question is who is paying for this ad - maybe I am missing the fine print but I can't see anything or anyone claiming authorship of the ad. It is very slick and runs occasionally etc - not a low $$ project - but no committee taking credit for it.

[edit] Incorrect Image

Theres currently a picture of Coolio as the first image in the article...

[edit] Sudanese Support for the Janjaweed

Is there any proof that the Sudanese Government is supporting the Janjaweed that can be cited? From this BBC NEWS article, I gather that the Sudanese Gov't is still denying support- perhaps the article should reflect this contention instead of presenting it as fact? -Shultze 16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means state that the Sudanese government denies it, but there is no doubt that they are actually doing it. For the past three years, reporters have been picking up air-ground communication between air force craft and janjaweed, janjaweed leaders in interviews have detailed how much equipment they are getting from the government and civilians have consistently described the army backing up janjaweed attacks on their villages. If you want a quick a dirty reference, try a quotation by Musa Hilal, head of the the main faction of janjaweed based out of Misteriha, "All the people in the field are led by top army commanders... These people get their orders from the Western command center and from Khartoum." (Flint and de Waal, p. 40, quoting a Human Rights Watch interview in September 2004) I'm sure you could find the exact source pretty easily, but the evidence is overwhelming. - Banyan Tree 03:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to African Union Mission in Sudan?

I'm not sure where to put this, but it seems like there should be links somewhere in the summary box (that lists combatants, commanders, etc.) to the African Union Mission in Sudan, which is the peacekeeping force currently in Darfur. Is there a set style or format for including something like that? They are certainly a highly visible party within the conflict and I think they should be included in this box. ivan 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ivan.Hypnosadist 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, {{Infobox Military Conflict}} poses some technical limitations. This did remind me to update the AMIS entry upto 2006. El_C 13:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's possible to use the "notes" parameter to the {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template. Mårten Berglund 15:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Nomination?

Anybody considered it?

It's a "Good Article" ... well written, well cited, contains descriptive pictures and is relevant to today... besides that, it's an important issue and could use the publicity.

If there is a reason it hasn't been submitted as a nomination yet, mention it here... but I think it'd be a good idea.

24.240.71.213 03:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection?

Why is the page protected? I couldn't find any explanation here on the talk page. Please explain! Mårten Berglund 16:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost track of the protection and didn't undo it promptly. It's unprotected now. - Banyan Tree 18:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia and rated Good article?

I wonder how this article was rated as a Good article, and how it was selected for version 0.5 release of Wikipedia, and the release version of Wikipedia? I cannot see any discussion of this here in the Talk page. Shouldn't we who read and update the page, collectively decide whether it is a good article or not yet? Or is it possible for one person alone to decide this? Mårten Berglund 16:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The process for all of these is linked from the template descriptions. Quickly, WP:GA is decided by a single person who is normally not involved or knowledgeable in the topic being reviewed. - Banyan Tree 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudan Divestment?

Is this something that can/should be included here? Please refer to the Sudan Divestment Task Force for information on this.

I've created this page which could potentially be useful in this regard. However, it may require a bit of fleshing out.--gozar 19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ---Gaddafi, Arab "Supremacy"

- Muammar Gaddafi - He called for Pan-Arabism, and Arab unity, not Arab supremacy. He was a socialist, revolutionary, those ideas of so called "Arab Supremacy" conflict with his notions of socialism etc. See Muammar Gaddafi article for details.

In addition , please quote from the book, the relevant secion, or paragraph, (ie. NOT only the sentence, i want to read the whole paragraph, or even page, that is claimed to have said this), ie. said this about Gadaffi calling for Arab supremacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmflash (talk • contribs) 12:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not going to type out a whole page, but here's some context:

But another dimension, little noted at the time, was Gaddafi's racism. Part of his hostility to Tombalbaye's regime was due to the fact that the Chadian president was a black African and a Christian and that in his early "revolutionary" days Gaddafi was not only a strident Pan-Arabist but an Arab cultural supremacist as well.

[skip extended quote from another source backing up the supremacy viewpoint]

The protestations of the Chadian ambassador in Tripoli, Beshir Sow (himself a Muslim), that there was no persecution of Muslims in his country were of no avail. So from the beginning, Gaddafi's support for the Chadian rebellion acquired a very particular racial tinge where the zurqa were suspected of siding with the "imperialists", while the "Arabs" (a concept even more elusive in Chad than in the Sudan) became the very incarnation of "revolutionary" purity. (Prunier, p. 44)

I trust that this is enough to prove that the citation was used correctly and the source is not being misrepresented. I will remove the POV tag, which is a very general template if you wished to challenge a specific citation. - Banyan Tree 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African Union and the UN

It is my understanding that the AU initially opposed the deployment of peacekeepers from outside Africa, but is now interested in allowing UN peacekeepers in to help. Is this true, and if so, could it be made clearer in the article when this change of heart happened? - 70.71.155.24 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what UN and other forces need to know that they cannot get from the secret intelligence community

All, this is a very impressive page, exactly what I hope will become standard as Wikipedia eventually out-performs the secret intelligence world (imagine what you all could do with $1.2 billion a *week*!).

If anyone is interested, as an experienced professional and aware that there may be pressure on Bush to "do something" soon, here are questions that would need to be answered for the commanders and staff of coalition forces that may be sent to do armed peacekeeping:

1. Current summary of the situation in 5 paragraphs--unit sizes and leadership from all parties, locations of base camps, general capabilities in terms of air and ground platforms, crew served weapons.

2) Current locations and status (starvation, disease, crime, rebel penetration and recruitment) of the refugee camps and refugees groups in motion. A clickable GoogleEarth map for 1 and 2 would be vastly superior to anything the secret world is willing to produce now.

3) Communications devices, frequencies, and if available, unit codes or designations. What can volunteers that speak the language (the US National Security Agency and tactical US military units suck at African languages) learn from current open broadcast monitoring? Is there a volunteer group in Europe or Africa that can start posting real-time intercepts?

4) What are the relationships among the Sudanese government, the Chadian government, the armed forces of Sudan and of Chad, and the varied rebel groups and refugee leaders if any, especially at the personal level. How are they in contact with what frequency? What is recent and projected history of their agreements? How are the key players in perpetuating the genocide and slowing down US and UN intervention, who are the key players that must be won over? [Note the US negotiators know a lot of this, believe it or not they are not sharing this information with the US military....inter-agency collaboration is dead under this Administration.]

5) Given that Darfur is one of 17 genocides now active (see www.genocidewatch.org) but the only one that has Hollywood and full page newsprinit ads going for it, what recent and impending genocides are anticipated in Darfur region that can be listed and shown on the GoogleEarth map with thumbtacks?

6) What foreign elements, e.g. Chinese, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, are present in Chad or Sudan with specific influence or or interest in Dafur? What are their plans, intentions, and capabilities?

7) Does anyone have 1:50,000 maps with contour lines of the entire border area in which one would have to operate to stop the genocide and separate the belligerents? What is the best mapping information available immediately, in 30 days, in 60 days, in 90 days? [NOTE: In my experience, the National Geospacial-Intelligence Agency has no maps at this tactical level on the shelf, and would need at least $10 million and 180 days to produce them, but first someone would have to give them the money and the order, and tell them what NOT to produce while they do this....in other words, they are not part of the solution.]

I've come to the conclusion that the best way I can be helpful to Wikipedia is to provide requirements and suggestions rather than enter data directly. I will glady review any page and help anyone who wishes to understand the decision-support paradigm that I am interested in achieving for all topics. See www.oss.net, the free Public Intelligence on ten threats, twelve policies, and eight challengers. Welcome spill-over from there to Wikipedia if desired.

Best wishes, Robert Steele 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this vandalism?

This edit was made by an IP that had vandalized the article a minute earlier, changing 14th to 15th centuries, etc. Can anyone with the knowledge verify which is the right info? Thanks, delldot | talk 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent edits were definitely vandalism and I've reverted the lot. - Banyan Tree 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some changes today are vandalism, but I am not familiar enough with the conflict to sort it out. Keep up the good fight! --Petercorless 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links go on the bibliography page

Given that the community decided to split up this page into multiple pages, I think that external links should properly go on the bibliography page, not this one. There were two external links and one "see also" that were quite random and, I think, just an attempt by people behind those projects to get them more exposure. They were certainly not the best or most useful of the external links. I think we should commit to just keeping all of the links on the bibliography page or people will be continually pushing their pet projects just to get more hits. ivan 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused about the multiple timelines in this section

Up until this page was split into multiple pages (summer '06), some of us were contributing to an ongoing timeline of facts about the conflict. That was moved over to international response to the Darfur conflict, which is fine. But it seems like since that time, a new timeline has begun on this page. It doesn't reference the other timeline, and while the first two years are basically overview summaries, the past few months have been recounted in as detailed a way as in the other timeline. So where should these go? I think we should either have a single timeline, with perhaps a very short summary on this page and reference to that article as the full version, or we should clearly determine what items should go on the "main" timeline and what should go on the "other" timeline. Right now I'm confused. ivan 00:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that this is still an issue and hoping someone will notice the edit...does anyone agree with me that two timelines on two pages is confusing? ivan 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Darfur Genocide

Calling it a conflict instead of a genoside is downplaying the event.--Sefringle 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But this article wants to give a political and demographic history, which starts before there was genocide and which gives the context for the genocide. You can't adequately describe the development of the conflict with the term "genocide." Don't move it. Michael Savitz 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Genocide is one aspect of the conflict. The creation of massive numbers of IDPs and foreign refugees can be construed as "ethnic cleansing" (depopulating wide swaths of area) but is not genocide per se (some die, but most move elsewhere, such as to refugee camps or enclaves). There is also the rebellion of the SLA, which is an armed conflict or insurrection. All these different aspects must be considered in the overall conflict. I am not denying that mass killings occur. However, there is more than mass-killings occurring. Hence, I agree to use the term "conflict," though I am not adverse to seeing the term "genocide" appear, cited properly, of course, to keep backlash and argumentation from breaking out. --Petercorless 02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification in "Unleashing the Janjaweed" section

This sentence concerns me--"Nevertheless, in the middle months of 2003, the rebels won 0 of 38 engagements"--because it comes in the middle of a passage describing (at that time) the rebels' successes against the government forces. Can anyone fix or clarify this? Michael Savitz 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It was "34 of 38" before the paragraph was messed up by a vandal. I've pasted in the paragraph from last October and semiprotected the page. - Banyan Tree 18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The ICC has laid charges

The ICC have laid charges of 'war crimes' against 2 individuals in the Sudanese government. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6404467.stm Someone wants to add that to the article? 217.7.209.108 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Started this section i'm going to look for what the 51 charges actually are, i remeber from a news report that it included mass murder and mass rape. If anyone else has info please add it here or in the article.Hypnosadist 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Link

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a few related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=18 concerning the conflict in Darfur, Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blendus, There actually shouldn't even be an external links section on this page, as everything but references is at Bibliography of the Darfur conflict. You are free to add links there under the appropriate section. However, if you're planning to add multiple links to your site, this may be treated as spam and it would be far better to add a single link to the front page of your Darfur section.

Also, I noticed that you have some great photos. The copyright holder might want to consider putting them under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA, and uploading them to Commons: into Category:Darfur conflict. A backlink to the originating webpage is encouraged in these cases, though the admins there will probably want to make sure that the claim to be the copyright holder is legitimate. Cheers, Banyan Tree 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont get people nowa days. they bitch about shit but the don't do anything.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/r/Talk%7EDarfur_conflict_7d90.html"