South Sudan: Peace Status was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 May 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into South Sudanese Civil War. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Sudanese Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving South Sudanese Civil War was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2013. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 15, 2018 and December 15, 2023. |
In the article, section 2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attempt#Background, there is the following blockquote:
The first leg for any government is a disciplined military. We have problems with the way our military functions today. That's a broken leg. We have civil society, right now it is very weak. The third leg is delivery of services. It is hard to deliver security...The fourth leg is political unity. We had political unity in the days leading up to the referendum [which led to independence]. Since the referendum, we have been having difficulties uniting our ranks. So right now the animal is standing on four crooked legs. If we do not fix these legs, the future is going to be very, very difficult.
Where is the second leg? I'm tempted to put a [sic] notice in there. — Jeremy 05:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The BBC says it is not clear if it was a coup attempt but that is what the government is alleging. [1] JustBeCool ( talk) 18:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
At best this phrase is meaningless; at worst offensive! How about "fighting broke out in Juba, including heavy artillery fire". Physchim62 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/nine-questions-about-south-sudan-crisis-guide-confused-observers -- Soman ( talk) 00:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Lihaas has reverted back the link to Armed Forces of South Sudan. In reality, there is no entity called "AFSS" or something similar. The Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) is the armed forces of the Republic of South Sudan, and is the appropriate link to be used. -- Soman ( talk) 03:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see any mention of these deaths - but the article seems a bit unorganized still. Is the town of Bor mentioned? [4] Rmhermen ( talk) 05:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Reading the latest news on this article around the news media, it seems blatantly obvious that the media have no editorial originality on-the-ground but are suddenly parroting the collation of sources on this artlice. (including the money-laden horse shit that is al Jazeera). Be aware that this is being relayed across the world. It had almost 15k hits yesterday and the day before that almost 20k.( Lihaas ( talk) 02:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).
I've just re-removed this as the article does not include any references to support a comparison to the massive scandal of the Srebrenica massacre with the recent events in South Sudan. UN safe havens and compounds have been attacked and captured on other occasions, and a comparison to Srebrenica should not be made lightly given the scale and seriousness of what happened there. If reliable sources are discussing such a comparison the article should explain this (did the UN guards stand by and allow the massacre of thousands of people in South Sudan to happen as was the case at Srebrenica? - nothing in the article at present indicates that anything like this occurred), and not just provide a vague link. Nick-D ( talk) 05:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I see that the United States is listed as a side in the conflict. According to this CNN article, the soldiers were only aiding in the evacuation of American citizens from the embassy. Is the US fighting or just involved in the evacuation? -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
As you say, the citation given does not support the assertion that the U.S. Air Force is a belligerent. (It says only that U.S. military aircraft were hit by gunfire.) Thus, I have removed the U.S. Air Force from the infobox. 108.184.149.45 ( talk) 22:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I can see this as part of the inter-tibal warring, but it is much larger, so Im a little weary of calling it a part. Any other thoughts?( Lihaas ( talk) 17:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)).
Lihaas, first, you removed the additional source I provided that confirms all three helicopters were hit by gunfire and the CNN source that was already in the article also counts three helicopters, not the two you claim. Read the sources before reverting please and refrain from accusations like blind reverts. Second, your source for the 66 dead is ok, but its out-of-date. Its only for the first day of fighting. The 500 figure is from a couple of days ago, thus more up-to-date. And according to Wikipedia policy, more up-to-date info supercedes older information. You don't see us puting in the casualties section of WW2 the number of dead being between day 1 of the war and the last day of the war. Also, your comments about the UN show a bit of a personal POV about them as a source. Wikipedia consideres the UN a reliable and authoritative source. So please, personal feelings aside. Thank you. EkoGraf ( talk) 09:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone should edit the article, because it reads like a mess.
Especially the paragraphs under Renewed Fighting. The battle for Bor, the attack on the UN base in Akobo and the situation in Juba are all mashed together. Same with the deployment of ugandan soldiers, the wounded US soldiers and now the loss of Bantiu.
I understand that the situation is changing daily and we got new developments all the time, but no need to just dump it all together. Its just a bad case of Recentism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.107.8 ( talk) 10:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm new here and no native english speaker, thats why I dont want to just edit the article myself, but much of the casualty figures (who were probably outdated just hours later) and statements in the heat of the moment can be removed, as well as repeating information and the mentioning that indeed there are ethnic clashes and fighting happening in SS. Here is the summary about what essentially happened since the alleged mutiny on 15.12 and the government response/fighting in Juba on 16.12. I just used exactly the same sentences from the article, just shortened it. And included todays fighting in Upper Nile. Hopefully it will help editing the article.
17.12:
18.12:
19.12:
20.12:
21.12:
22.12:
23.12:
80.187.96.129 ( talk) 19:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
24.12:
This kind of expression is a gigantic red flag for any seasoned Wikipedia editor that an ethnic dispute has spilled over into our encyclopedia. It is possible that the academic community and the news community are at odds as to what the reality of the situation is, in which case we would defer to the more reliable academic sources. But we would need to include inline citations to the sources, and not simply claim "IT IS ON THE PAGE" as if that has ever been an acceptable answer on Wikipedia. Expecting me to read the page to determine the accuracy of this claim would be asking me to synthesize materials. Our job while editing this encyclopedia is much more mundane and uncontroversial. We say what the sources say. If there are no sources that say exactly this, we don't say it.
Therefore, as a compromise, I will keep the material in question but restore the inline citation templates to warn users about potentially inaccurate material. I will give Lihaas one more chance to provide the inline citations I have requested before once again deleting the material. If it is restored after that, I will seek administrative action.
This is a fairly trivial issue of sourcing. Please provide the sources I've asked for. If you can find none that support your claim, try to calm yourself and look at it objectively; is it really just you trying to say something? Have you read the material and tried to summarize it or have you made an opinion and then sought material to support it? Sources are just about the least controversial dispute you can have on this website. As soon as they are provided (assuming they are reliable), I will have no more complaints. I really hope we can avoid escalating this any farther, but I need your cooperation to make sure that doesn't happen. PraetorianFury ( talk) 22:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The question is this passage:
Though the international news media have depicted the event mainly as an ethnic conflict between the Dinka and Nuer[citation needed], there are also Dinkas and Shilluk on the side of the Nuer rebels such as Rebecca Garang, the widow of the SPLM leader John Garang, and Pagan Amum, respectively; while there are Equatorians on the government Dinka-majority side.[citation needed]
I've been adding the citation templates to the statement about the international news media. That sentence says, "everyone is wrong." The following sentence, in that context, says, "this is what is actually correct". If not for the first sentence, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the second. When I add a citation template, it is a warning to our readers that they should be suspicious of material, not reject it completely. When you delete dispute templates like this, you are attempting to claim that no dispute exists, and are thus potentially misleading our readers. Further, warning templates serve as an alternative to edit warring. If you would reject even this small compromise, then I don't know what I can do to work with you.
You asked what I propose. Here is what I think is the only option with the sources we have:
Seems pretty reasonable to me. PraetorianFury ( talk) 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Removed this, as this is pretty much the point being made by the sources (not me) that it is MORE than any ethnic conflict even though cloaked in a veneer of this element.( Lihaas ( talk) 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)).
In order to prevent some future conflict, since we are 2/3 through the way to being too long an article and itll probably expand. Hhow should we split the page? Should we split the main bit of prose or the respose/reaction to another article?( Lihaas ( talk) 00:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)).
Thats why I suggested above that you should first edit the article and remove unnecessary information and trim the size of the article. The conflict is not even two weeks old and can last quite a bit. 80.187.97.33 ( talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
someone please find which the 5th state that is in conflict as of 25 December 2013 is? According to the media there are 5 but no one names them, by collating info I have come up with 4.( Lihaas ( talk) 00:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)).
The OCHA on 27.12 named Central Equatoria, Jonglei, Unity, Upper Nile (these four are a clear case), as well as Warap and Eastern Equatoria as states being affected by violence. Also, as a personal guess, the location and the fact that over 40,000 displaced people have fled there, will very likely affect Lakes State much. Though I also have seen just the four states as being explicitely named as places where fighting happened. 80.187.97.33 ( talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I propose the name of the article to be changed to 2013 South Sudanese conflict or 2013-2014 South Sudanese conflict since 2014 is coming up, because simply a political crisis it is not. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Title of the article which suggested user EkoGraf more correct for this article. Since in South Sudan is not a political crisis there now armed conflict. Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's good example how this article should be called. Northern Mali conflict or Central African Republic conflict (2012–13) Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree. This is now a full scale armed conflict. Each side has armed forces battling each other. I think the title should be changed to South Sudanese conflict (2013–present).-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with South Sudanese conflict (2013–present). EkoGraf ( talk) 16:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with South Sudanese conflict (2013–present). Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree we need a name change. All major news outlets agree that it's on the brink of "civil war" so we'll most likely have to change it again in a few days. Keitsist ( talk) 13:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree also. Civil war is the best term but media not widely using said term yet so South Sudan Conflict is probably better or a similar term. Kspence92 20:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.120.76 ( talk)
The term "civil war" is already used in the media. 3bdulelah ( talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This article has several egregious mistakes going all the way through it. The SSLM/A is not the primary rebel group at the moment. Ex-SSLA troops are principally on Kiir's side: when Koang Chuol defected in Bentiu, it was ex-SSLA units of the SPLA under Jang who advanced against Koang Chuol. See here: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49286. None of the sources cited even mention the SSLA. Although a Nuer faction is reportedly led by Peter Gadet, this is inaccurate to call this faction the SSLA. Keitsist ( talk) 09:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The conflict meets all conventional definitions of civil war. Request article name change to "South Sudanese Civil War." 76.106.123.223 ( talk) 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Again the term "civil war" is used.
The box appears to show the United Nations as a belligerent on the side of the Government. I do not think that is so explicitly the case in reality. The Central African Republic Conflict has three columns instead where France and peacekeeping troops are labeled under. Why not do that here? JustBeCool ( talk) 18:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Including the UN in a 3rd column the infobox seems undue to me. It gives the impression that this is a 3-way war, which is not an accurate depiction.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to expand in parentheses the first occurrence of each, such as for NLC, SPLM, etc. Where relevant and there exist corresponding articles, making them links would also be helpful for readers. The lead is the introduction, afterall. Thanks. 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The title was "South Sudanese conflict (2013 - present)" but then a user changed it to the current, "South Sudanese conflict (2013 - 2014)" after the signing of the ceasefire. However, as the infobox shows and, I would presume, most observers and editors agree, the conflict is not over and arguably more intense than before the ceasefire. So, I think the title "South Sudanese conflict (2013-present) should be brought back. JustBeCool ( talk) 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
South Sudanese conflict (2013–14) → South Sudanese Civil War – This is clearly a civil war by now, rather than just a 'conflict'. See sources in the main article Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 11:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources are confirmed or reliable, and there is no given exact number for the strength of either side; thus the current numbers are in a way, making one side look far more superior than it really is. CentreLeftRight ( talk) 04:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on
South Sudanese Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
South Sudanese Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Did the war end? I mean the leaders of both sides created united government. Also no reports about any Dinka/Nuer killings. -- Jenda H. ( talk) 13:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Libya also has an united government, but there's still war. I'd call the section rather something like 'reunified government' or something like this.-- Ermanarich ( talk) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
What's taking place in Libya is considered a second civil war. Also, sources have been provided stating that the war that started in 2013 ended in August 2015. And the current clashes are described as creating fear of a new civil war. EkoGraf ( talk) 05:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me why the mobile version of that page uses a different map? /info/en/?search=South_Sudanese_Civil_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War
I get a totally different map showing the red occupying much more territory than the green when accessing the mobile version of the page. Both images claim to be the same date in the subheading, and this is accessing both from the same browser, same machine etc, just adding .m. to the url. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:FD30:3021:10F:2EB4:603A ( talk) 09:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on South Sudanese Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Lede paragraphs are far too long. They need to be incorporated into the main body of the article. -- Mwoofsh ( talk) 10:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Material from this article has been copied to the Wikiedia article 2010s political history. Michael E Nolan ( talk) 19:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Did the war end on February 22, 2020 with the formation of a unity government? While I would argue that the war actually ended with the signing of the R-ARCSS on September 12, 2018 as there was little conflict between the main groups after it, I would say the war is definitely over with the resolution of the political conflict in the formation of the unity government. While some groups like SS-UF and NAS (which recently committed to a ceasefire) continue to oppose the government, the actual military action is much more like the insurgencies of the pre-civil war period, as all of the remaining groups are relatively small. Thus, I propose to mark the war as ended and if more violence occurs with any of these groups, to make an "Blank insurgency in South Sudan" page. Leviavery ( talk) 16:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
South Sudan: Peace Status was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 May 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into South Sudanese Civil War. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Sudanese Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving South Sudanese Civil War was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2013. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 15, 2018 and December 15, 2023. |
In the article, section 2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attempt#Background, there is the following blockquote:
The first leg for any government is a disciplined military. We have problems with the way our military functions today. That's a broken leg. We have civil society, right now it is very weak. The third leg is delivery of services. It is hard to deliver security...The fourth leg is political unity. We had political unity in the days leading up to the referendum [which led to independence]. Since the referendum, we have been having difficulties uniting our ranks. So right now the animal is standing on four crooked legs. If we do not fix these legs, the future is going to be very, very difficult.
Where is the second leg? I'm tempted to put a [sic] notice in there. — Jeremy 05:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The BBC says it is not clear if it was a coup attempt but that is what the government is alleging. [1] JustBeCool ( talk) 18:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
At best this phrase is meaningless; at worst offensive! How about "fighting broke out in Juba, including heavy artillery fire". Physchim62 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/nine-questions-about-south-sudan-crisis-guide-confused-observers -- Soman ( talk) 00:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Lihaas has reverted back the link to Armed Forces of South Sudan. In reality, there is no entity called "AFSS" or something similar. The Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) is the armed forces of the Republic of South Sudan, and is the appropriate link to be used. -- Soman ( talk) 03:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see any mention of these deaths - but the article seems a bit unorganized still. Is the town of Bor mentioned? [4] Rmhermen ( talk) 05:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Reading the latest news on this article around the news media, it seems blatantly obvious that the media have no editorial originality on-the-ground but are suddenly parroting the collation of sources on this artlice. (including the money-laden horse shit that is al Jazeera). Be aware that this is being relayed across the world. It had almost 15k hits yesterday and the day before that almost 20k.( Lihaas ( talk) 02:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).
I've just re-removed this as the article does not include any references to support a comparison to the massive scandal of the Srebrenica massacre with the recent events in South Sudan. UN safe havens and compounds have been attacked and captured on other occasions, and a comparison to Srebrenica should not be made lightly given the scale and seriousness of what happened there. If reliable sources are discussing such a comparison the article should explain this (did the UN guards stand by and allow the massacre of thousands of people in South Sudan to happen as was the case at Srebrenica? - nothing in the article at present indicates that anything like this occurred), and not just provide a vague link. Nick-D ( talk) 05:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I see that the United States is listed as a side in the conflict. According to this CNN article, the soldiers were only aiding in the evacuation of American citizens from the embassy. Is the US fighting or just involved in the evacuation? -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
As you say, the citation given does not support the assertion that the U.S. Air Force is a belligerent. (It says only that U.S. military aircraft were hit by gunfire.) Thus, I have removed the U.S. Air Force from the infobox. 108.184.149.45 ( talk) 22:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I can see this as part of the inter-tibal warring, but it is much larger, so Im a little weary of calling it a part. Any other thoughts?( Lihaas ( talk) 17:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)).
Lihaas, first, you removed the additional source I provided that confirms all three helicopters were hit by gunfire and the CNN source that was already in the article also counts three helicopters, not the two you claim. Read the sources before reverting please and refrain from accusations like blind reverts. Second, your source for the 66 dead is ok, but its out-of-date. Its only for the first day of fighting. The 500 figure is from a couple of days ago, thus more up-to-date. And according to Wikipedia policy, more up-to-date info supercedes older information. You don't see us puting in the casualties section of WW2 the number of dead being between day 1 of the war and the last day of the war. Also, your comments about the UN show a bit of a personal POV about them as a source. Wikipedia consideres the UN a reliable and authoritative source. So please, personal feelings aside. Thank you. EkoGraf ( talk) 09:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone should edit the article, because it reads like a mess.
Especially the paragraphs under Renewed Fighting. The battle for Bor, the attack on the UN base in Akobo and the situation in Juba are all mashed together. Same with the deployment of ugandan soldiers, the wounded US soldiers and now the loss of Bantiu.
I understand that the situation is changing daily and we got new developments all the time, but no need to just dump it all together. Its just a bad case of Recentism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.107.8 ( talk) 10:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm new here and no native english speaker, thats why I dont want to just edit the article myself, but much of the casualty figures (who were probably outdated just hours later) and statements in the heat of the moment can be removed, as well as repeating information and the mentioning that indeed there are ethnic clashes and fighting happening in SS. Here is the summary about what essentially happened since the alleged mutiny on 15.12 and the government response/fighting in Juba on 16.12. I just used exactly the same sentences from the article, just shortened it. And included todays fighting in Upper Nile. Hopefully it will help editing the article.
17.12:
18.12:
19.12:
20.12:
21.12:
22.12:
23.12:
80.187.96.129 ( talk) 19:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
24.12:
This kind of expression is a gigantic red flag for any seasoned Wikipedia editor that an ethnic dispute has spilled over into our encyclopedia. It is possible that the academic community and the news community are at odds as to what the reality of the situation is, in which case we would defer to the more reliable academic sources. But we would need to include inline citations to the sources, and not simply claim "IT IS ON THE PAGE" as if that has ever been an acceptable answer on Wikipedia. Expecting me to read the page to determine the accuracy of this claim would be asking me to synthesize materials. Our job while editing this encyclopedia is much more mundane and uncontroversial. We say what the sources say. If there are no sources that say exactly this, we don't say it.
Therefore, as a compromise, I will keep the material in question but restore the inline citation templates to warn users about potentially inaccurate material. I will give Lihaas one more chance to provide the inline citations I have requested before once again deleting the material. If it is restored after that, I will seek administrative action.
This is a fairly trivial issue of sourcing. Please provide the sources I've asked for. If you can find none that support your claim, try to calm yourself and look at it objectively; is it really just you trying to say something? Have you read the material and tried to summarize it or have you made an opinion and then sought material to support it? Sources are just about the least controversial dispute you can have on this website. As soon as they are provided (assuming they are reliable), I will have no more complaints. I really hope we can avoid escalating this any farther, but I need your cooperation to make sure that doesn't happen. PraetorianFury ( talk) 22:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The question is this passage:
Though the international news media have depicted the event mainly as an ethnic conflict between the Dinka and Nuer[citation needed], there are also Dinkas and Shilluk on the side of the Nuer rebels such as Rebecca Garang, the widow of the SPLM leader John Garang, and Pagan Amum, respectively; while there are Equatorians on the government Dinka-majority side.[citation needed]
I've been adding the citation templates to the statement about the international news media. That sentence says, "everyone is wrong." The following sentence, in that context, says, "this is what is actually correct". If not for the first sentence, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the second. When I add a citation template, it is a warning to our readers that they should be suspicious of material, not reject it completely. When you delete dispute templates like this, you are attempting to claim that no dispute exists, and are thus potentially misleading our readers. Further, warning templates serve as an alternative to edit warring. If you would reject even this small compromise, then I don't know what I can do to work with you.
You asked what I propose. Here is what I think is the only option with the sources we have:
Seems pretty reasonable to me. PraetorianFury ( talk) 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Removed this, as this is pretty much the point being made by the sources (not me) that it is MORE than any ethnic conflict even though cloaked in a veneer of this element.( Lihaas ( talk) 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)).
In order to prevent some future conflict, since we are 2/3 through the way to being too long an article and itll probably expand. Hhow should we split the page? Should we split the main bit of prose or the respose/reaction to another article?( Lihaas ( talk) 00:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)).
Thats why I suggested above that you should first edit the article and remove unnecessary information and trim the size of the article. The conflict is not even two weeks old and can last quite a bit. 80.187.97.33 ( talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
someone please find which the 5th state that is in conflict as of 25 December 2013 is? According to the media there are 5 but no one names them, by collating info I have come up with 4.( Lihaas ( talk) 00:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)).
The OCHA on 27.12 named Central Equatoria, Jonglei, Unity, Upper Nile (these four are a clear case), as well as Warap and Eastern Equatoria as states being affected by violence. Also, as a personal guess, the location and the fact that over 40,000 displaced people have fled there, will very likely affect Lakes State much. Though I also have seen just the four states as being explicitely named as places where fighting happened. 80.187.97.33 ( talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I propose the name of the article to be changed to 2013 South Sudanese conflict or 2013-2014 South Sudanese conflict since 2014 is coming up, because simply a political crisis it is not. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Title of the article which suggested user EkoGraf more correct for this article. Since in South Sudan is not a political crisis there now armed conflict. Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's good example how this article should be called. Northern Mali conflict or Central African Republic conflict (2012–13) Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree. This is now a full scale armed conflict. Each side has armed forces battling each other. I think the title should be changed to South Sudanese conflict (2013–present).-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with South Sudanese conflict (2013–present). EkoGraf ( talk) 16:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with South Sudanese conflict (2013–present). Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree we need a name change. All major news outlets agree that it's on the brink of "civil war" so we'll most likely have to change it again in a few days. Keitsist ( talk) 13:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree also. Civil war is the best term but media not widely using said term yet so South Sudan Conflict is probably better or a similar term. Kspence92 20:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.120.76 ( talk)
The term "civil war" is already used in the media. 3bdulelah ( talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This article has several egregious mistakes going all the way through it. The SSLM/A is not the primary rebel group at the moment. Ex-SSLA troops are principally on Kiir's side: when Koang Chuol defected in Bentiu, it was ex-SSLA units of the SPLA under Jang who advanced against Koang Chuol. See here: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49286. None of the sources cited even mention the SSLA. Although a Nuer faction is reportedly led by Peter Gadet, this is inaccurate to call this faction the SSLA. Keitsist ( talk) 09:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The conflict meets all conventional definitions of civil war. Request article name change to "South Sudanese Civil War." 76.106.123.223 ( talk) 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Again the term "civil war" is used.
The box appears to show the United Nations as a belligerent on the side of the Government. I do not think that is so explicitly the case in reality. The Central African Republic Conflict has three columns instead where France and peacekeeping troops are labeled under. Why not do that here? JustBeCool ( talk) 18:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Including the UN in a 3rd column the infobox seems undue to me. It gives the impression that this is a 3-way war, which is not an accurate depiction.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to expand in parentheses the first occurrence of each, such as for NLC, SPLM, etc. Where relevant and there exist corresponding articles, making them links would also be helpful for readers. The lead is the introduction, afterall. Thanks. 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The title was "South Sudanese conflict (2013 - present)" but then a user changed it to the current, "South Sudanese conflict (2013 - 2014)" after the signing of the ceasefire. However, as the infobox shows and, I would presume, most observers and editors agree, the conflict is not over and arguably more intense than before the ceasefire. So, I think the title "South Sudanese conflict (2013-present) should be brought back. JustBeCool ( talk) 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
South Sudanese conflict (2013–14) → South Sudanese Civil War – This is clearly a civil war by now, rather than just a 'conflict'. See sources in the main article Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 11:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources are confirmed or reliable, and there is no given exact number for the strength of either side; thus the current numbers are in a way, making one side look far more superior than it really is. CentreLeftRight ( talk) 04:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on
South Sudanese Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
South Sudanese Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Did the war end? I mean the leaders of both sides created united government. Also no reports about any Dinka/Nuer killings. -- Jenda H. ( talk) 13:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Libya also has an united government, but there's still war. I'd call the section rather something like 'reunified government' or something like this.-- Ermanarich ( talk) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
What's taking place in Libya is considered a second civil war. Also, sources have been provided stating that the war that started in 2013 ended in August 2015. And the current clashes are described as creating fear of a new civil war. EkoGraf ( talk) 05:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me why the mobile version of that page uses a different map? /info/en/?search=South_Sudanese_Civil_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War
I get a totally different map showing the red occupying much more territory than the green when accessing the mobile version of the page. Both images claim to be the same date in the subheading, and this is accessing both from the same browser, same machine etc, just adding .m. to the url. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:FD30:3021:10F:2EB4:603A ( talk) 09:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on South Sudanese Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Lede paragraphs are far too long. They need to be incorporated into the main body of the article. -- Mwoofsh ( talk) 10:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Material from this article has been copied to the Wikiedia article 2010s political history. Michael E Nolan ( talk) 19:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Did the war end on February 22, 2020 with the formation of a unity government? While I would argue that the war actually ended with the signing of the R-ARCSS on September 12, 2018 as there was little conflict between the main groups after it, I would say the war is definitely over with the resolution of the political conflict in the formation of the unity government. While some groups like SS-UF and NAS (which recently committed to a ceasefire) continue to oppose the government, the actual military action is much more like the insurgencies of the pre-civil war period, as all of the remaining groups are relatively small. Thus, I propose to mark the war as ended and if more violence occurs with any of these groups, to make an "Blank insurgency in South Sudan" page. Leviavery ( talk) 16:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)