![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2023 Sudanese Armed Forces-Rapid Support Forces confrontation → 2023 Sudanese coup d'état attempt – RSF attempted to took over the power. Panam2014 ( talk) 13:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Do you all suggest we add the plane sightings over Khartoum or are they not notable enough to be included. Also, should I add in statements made by Anthony Blinken in Hanoi? TheWhiterCloud ( talk) 10:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Didn't want to WP:RM this because the article is unstable, but isn't 2023 Sudan clashes a more WP:CONCISE title? 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Do you do it in bullet points or all in one paragraph? The 64 Squares ( talk) 14:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@ PLATEL: Hemedti is by far the more common name of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. see here: Better known by the nickname "Hemedti", Gen Dagalo was named deputy chairman of the Transitional Military Council that took over after the army removed Mr Al Bashir... 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
where does this name come from? doesnt seem accurate? 217.102.250.25 ( talk) 10:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure if it is not going to be "notable enough", but I think that having reactions from different sides within Sudan and outside Sudan could help the reader understand some of the context behind the events happening, and a lot of other pages relating to Sudan has them too such as the Sudanese Revolution or 2019 Sudanese coup d'état. TheWhiterCloud ( talk) 12:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The Sudan revolutionary front doesn't control any territory there was a peace agreement signed between the government and the Sudanese revolutionary front in 2020. DitorWiki ( talk) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@ 25stargeneral, may you please explain more about why using the demonym in the title is not appropriate? It seems more grammatically correct to me. - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber) - 21:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I think there should be rather a "Sudanese Crisis (2018–)" article that this article being part of "Sudanese transition to democracy" Braganza ( talk) 09:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Can this be called third Sudanese civil war ? 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:249E:B5AB:FF65:E107 ( talk) 09:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I am asking this as I feel like this may drag on for a bit, and in case someone proposes a move to a coup or civil war. - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber) - 11:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The usage of {{ Abbreviation}} for RSF seems excessive for every usage of "RSF". The parenthetical "Rapid Support Forces (RSF)" should suffice in the lead paragraph.
SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces) hasn't been named in the lead paragraph, so some spare usage for that seems fine. 93 ( talk) 04:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly I am now sometimes confusing the SAF with the Sudanese Air Force. Maybe we could use "government forces" instead. Borgenland ( talk) 05:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@ FuzzyMagma: I did not remove "information abou assult on the ambassador and us convey". I moved it to a different section. I have also removed information about closure of airspace because it is already included. I do not have to make small and incremental edits at all. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If you google “sudan conflict†you’ll see many sources that call this conflict, so why can’t we move to 2023 Sudan conflict then? like 2008 Lebanon conflict 88.240.249.213 ( talk) 00:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW. Not described as such by any RS yet, not moved . ( non-admin closure) Ecrusized ( talk) 20:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan clashes → Third Sudanese Civil War – Technically, the crisis is escalating into a civil war (Probably it is right now). I mean, residential buildings are being bombed and the casualties number is increasing significally. However, we will wait for a bit until we change to this title. Just like in february and march 2011, when the Libyan War was called Libyan uprising and was changed to Libyan Civil War afterwards also in march 2011. TankDude2000 ( talk) 15:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
There's frustratingly little information on who controls what in the country, so I think putting a map in the infobox is a bit premature. We could add a map that shows areas of major fighting though Scaramouche33 ( talk) 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
For people with red-green weakness, the map is not to be used. Yunesxy ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
As many of you know, most editors despise the list-formatted "Reactions" section, especially the flag icons. This section should be converted into prose--not a bulleted list. Sourcing should not be primary, such as tweets. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Can this already be a civil war 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:A89F:9588:C1BC:A9C5 ( talk) 06:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
There doesn’t seem to be enough adequate sources to mention them as belligerents. Aside from the claims of a RSF commander and Cameron Hudson (who is generally considered unreliable and is imo nothing more than a journalist) there isn’t any evidence that Egypt is involved. That is a very big claim to make. There also is much evidence that the LNA is supporting the RSF aside from that single article. Ù…Øرر البوق ( talk) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Let’s be honest, the fighting was too intense for just being a coup d'é·tat plus the deaths are skyrocketing and the fighting is already a start of a Civil War so I think changing this article to the third Sudanese Civil War makes much sense, and it’s not wait for like months to just call it. This was a clearly a Civil War from the start. 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:F450:4765:4F5D:96BD ( talk) 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Sudan clashes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting addition of international reaction from Indonesia as provided by following news https://en.tempo.co/read/1717313/indonesia-aims-to-evacuate-citizens-in-conflict-stricken-sudan Muhammad Erril ( talk) 15:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Since most users agreed, shall we close the discussion and move the page? TankDude2000 ( talk) 05:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Described as a conflict by RS. Overwhelming support in discussion, moved . ( non-admin closure) Ecrusized ( talk) 08:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan clashes → 2023 Sudan conflict – Reliable sources have little consensus on what to call the ongoing situation in Sudan, but it is clear at this point that it is more advanced than merely "clashes"; the RSF have taken over large swaths of Sudan. I think it is reasonable to use 2023 Sudan conflict, as it describes the conflict more intensely, but does not label it as a "war" or "civil war," as neither have enough consensus. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE ( talk) 23:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Burhan and Dagalo have been making statements regarding the political situation. Hope someone can find a way to integrate them properly in this article since I'm not sure where to put them and I don't think the Reaction section is a good place to put them. Borgenland ( talk) 09:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Sudan conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Grammatical error in the Disinformation tab. Change "On 14 April, the official SAF page published a video it said was for operations carried out by the Sudanese Air Force against the RSF." to "On 14 April, the official SAF page published a video it said was of operations carried out by the Sudanese Air Force against the RSF.". TextbookRPHS ( talk) 16:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The source indicating that Ethiopia is supporting the RSF is just an accusation and has little to no evidence. Alleging someone is supporting someone isn't enough to be accurate. It should be removed or replaced with better sources at least. I do expect Ethiopia and especially Eritrea to lean towards the RSF because of their tensions with Sudan and Egypt.
In a nutshell, remove Ethiopia on RSF's side or keep it and replace it with better sources. IGotAPHD ( talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The rapid support forces and the Sudanese armed forces have there own flag which should be inserted other than the Sudanese flag DitorWiki ( talk) 14:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify, is it Merowe, Merwi, Marwi or Marawi? And there should be a standard name for that throughout the article. Borgenland ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all your clarifications! Borgenland ( talk) 14:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
To confuse you a little bit more: there are two locations of this name in the Sudan: (1)- /info/en/?search=Mero%C3%AB مرواه or مروي (2)- /info/en/?search=Merowe,_Sudan مروي number (1) is 200 km north-east of Khartoum number (2) is 220 km north of Khartoum at the Merowe dam and has an airport called Merowe airport Both are close to the river Nile. If the Egyptian soldiers would have been taken captive in (1), it would be of interest in regard of Ethiopia. If in (2), there is a direct train connection to Wadi Halfa and Egypt. The Arabic name of both locations is the same, so it would be important to make clear which one is meant. -- 2A00:20:C00F:32A:19C3:8F6C:4E5C:EF56 ( talk) 23:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone familiar with the situation know how accurate is the map presented in the infobox or if it's covered by RS? Elserbio00 ( talk) 09:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Given the way this conflict has developed since April 15, should the claims of control on April 15 still be in the intro? Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 21:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The Libyan general Haftar denied supporting the RSF, as has Wagner. As is said in the article in the section about foreign involvement. Shouldn't the wikibox reflect this? Genabab ( talk) 12:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Please don’t forget the casualties section when you update the death toll on the Introbox. Borgenland ( talk) 13:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Here are some good sources for an analysis section - some parts to improve the background based on what has already happened prior to 15 April; and some for a separate analysis section towards the end, after Disinformation and before the Reactions section, for understanding of the sociological structures in Sudan (military and civilian) and what possibilities are seen (by named sources, either the newspaper or a named individual, not by unnamed " analysts") for how this may evolve or resolve:
Boud ( talk) 12:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm on the opinion that Russia should be used in the belligerents sections of the infobox instead of Wagner. Wagner group is an arm of the Russian government that masquerades as being an independent entity. Ecrusized ( talk) 17:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
President Biden of USA posted on Twitter at 11:10 PM EST on 22/4/2023 that U.S. military forces conducted operations to extract government personnel from Khartoum. Backed up by multiple international news sources. [1] Spacetaters ( talk) 17:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Edit: NY Times reporting EU diplomats and citizens have started to be evacuated Sunday. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacetaters ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
References
It's too big and not formatted in the Wikipedia way. We've reached the point where it's not that informative just putting every single country's and organization's reactions. Not even the Reactions section in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article is that big. Yes, there's a separate article for that, but the main one is clear and concise. There's no need for the article to have "X country: X stated that Sudan is not safe to visit" times hundred. C4rstv0 ( talk) 21:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Add it, man. 46.188.173.25 ( talk) 10:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This move request was closed as not moved by editor Oddballslover at 00:29 on 25 April 2023 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflict – I propose to change the article title from 2023 Sudan conflict to 2023 Sudanese conflict DitorWiki ( talk) 14:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
the map should be improved + it shows Sudan's claimed borders and does not reflect the disputes Braganza ( talk) 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
People with red-green weakness cannot use the map, all provinces look the same. I cannot edit it. -- 2A00:20:C00F:32A:E597:8837:977C:744C ( talk) 23:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW close. Clearly no consensus to move, owing to examples of "civil war" not being the WP:COMMONNAME and a move being too soon. This topic could be returned to in the future if there is a sufficient demonstration that this is regularly described as a third civil war. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Czello ( music) 09:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan conflict → Third Sudanese Civil War
According to Fox News and Washington post this as a civil war:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/president-biden-calls-civil-war-sudan-unconscionable-us-embassy-personnel-evacuate https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/04/23/sudan-civil-war-violence-future/ Oddballslover ( talk) 23:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if the army eventually does secure the capital, and Hemedti retreats to Darfur, a civil war could well follow
Sudan is sliding towards civil warit is not yet! and it is only mentioned in the title
Sudanese analysts warn that the country is now heading toward an all-out civil war., again toward!
If the conflict drags on, more people in the extremely fragmented Sudanese society might take up arms, says analyst Alex de Waal., this is a speculation although it is true if it happens that this will be a Civil war, not a armed conflict as defined by International committee of the red cross, Amnesty international and Geneva Academy or even in Wikipedia
The term Sudanese Civil War refers to at least three separate conflicts: First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972), Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005), South Sudanese Civil War (2013–2020). It could also refer to other internal conflicts in Sudan and South Sudan: Lord's Resistance Army insurgency (1987–present), Ethnic violence in South Sudan, Sudanese nomadic conflicts, War in Darfur (2003–2020), Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile (2011–2020), 2023 Sudan conflict. As well as conflicts between Sudan and South Sudan after the breakup: Heglig Crisis (2012)
Should we change the Article to "2023 Sudanese civil war"? Since the rebels took some parts of the country, there are tanks in the streets, air force is active and etc Lucasmota0975 ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
You have to make a quick change, this is not just skirmishes, it is at the national level. the title should be civil war or rebellion in sudan 2023. Matias Taboadaxx ( talk) 11:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Sources are starting to call it a civil war: https://www.newsdrum.in/international/sudans-civil-war-enters-its-fourth-day-with-no-sight-of-any-relief
Also i think the clashes got intense enough to consider it as a civil war Lucasoliveira653 ( talk) 14:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Considering that Sudan has been involved in civil war twice, in case of Civil war, should we write it 2023 Sudan Civil War or the Third Sudanese Civil War or something else? Parham wiki ( talk) 22:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I want to bring a discussion because I will probability move this soon . Oddballslover talk 03:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Me and @ Wikiexplorationandhelping are having a disagreement with @ Oddballslover over which RM to keep open. For now, I'm keeping both open until we have input by the community over what we should all do. Input is of course appreciated down below. Thanks, - L'Mainerque - ( Woo, /talk/!) - 02:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflictRM should be closed. — Nythar ( 💬- ðŸ€) 02:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@FusionSub look at Talk:2023 Sudan conflict#Requested move 24 April 2023 there is a lot of links. Oddballslobver ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's a civil war now sadly 95.148.25.109 ( talk) 16:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I propose to change the article title from 2023 Sudan conflict to 2023 Sudan crisis. Just like the 1958 Lebanon crisis and the Congo Crisis DitorWiki ( talk) 01:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I was going to put the denials in again as there was no reason given for their removal (at least that I could see...) but I saw that denials shouldn't be placed there. Could I ask why that is? Genabab ( talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Article is having some heavy edit warring lately due to its In The News (ITN) status. I have opened a extended protection request to decrease the amount of edit warring. I would appreciate if rest of the top editors could support the request at that page. Thanks. @ Borgenland, TheWhiterCloud, FuzzyMagma, 25stargeneral, Blaylockjam10, and Borysk5: Ecrusized ( talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Why de facto civil war is part of democratic transition? As far as I know it is power struggle and it has anything to do with democratisation Polonianova ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Anyone think we should rename the page as such? Theasiancowboy ( talk) 12:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
As we can see Khartoum is not only area of battle and Sudan is a pretty large country and there are battles happening in other areas when will thouse battles have their own page 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:2542:282B:5FEB:7683 ( talk) 05:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Egypt is currently listed as a belligerent, with a note pointing to the section 2023 Sudan conflict#Egypt. That section, however, does not support naming Egypt as a party here: the presence of a few (destroyed) fighter jets and some personnel has been explained with exercises predating the conflict. RSf themselves, according to our text, accepted that explanation and repatriated the Egyptian prisoners. The WSJ is invoked as a source here, but the reference is missing. The article can probably be found, but at this point it is also outdated. The most forceful source for the section is some ex-CIA's Twitter account. That's not enough, bluecheck or not.
This may be an instance where Wikipedia making a claim could have outsized effects, considering everybody else is (rightly) equivocating on the question. Let's not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, please. I'm removing Egypt as a belligerent and will try to defuse the section on the topic. K. Oblique 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we should make a article about a refugee crisis, I've seen evidence of thousands of Khartoum residents and thousands of other people from all across the story fleeing to Chad and Egypt, the last reports reported the number at at least 20,000 for Chad but nothing for Egypt this number has probably rised as the conflict intensified even more after the ceasefire. I think there is enough info and enough intensity to make another article related to this, I'll also try and find sources to support this possibly.
NYMan6 ( talk) 20:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Is the Sudan Doctors Union the same as the Sudan Doctors Syndicate? I keep finding variations in news outlets. Borgenland ( talk) 14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Sudan conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this to: Rapid Support Forces supported by:
Wagner Group is a private company, similar to Triple Canopy and Blackwater (company) both operated in Iraq with contracts from US army. They have been involved in different contracts but they are not Russia o considered a Russian army FuzzyMagma ( talk) 18:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It is widely speculated that the Wagner Group is used by the Russian government… for various reasons, does not mean they ARE directly in Russia's chain of command, nor that anyone knows what the relationship actually IS - hence "speculated" - and we shouldn't imply that they are officially 'Russian'. The underlying problems though to my mind are that we are asking the infobox to give nuanced answers, when it is meant to only have simple factual, uncontroversial 'facts', and to an extent we are asking this article to cover matters better covered on the Wagner group article, or elsewhere. Pincrete ( talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
References
"From a legal perspective, Wagner doesn't exist," says Sorcha MacLeod
This is not really a discussion about the move, more a centralized place to keep the sources and track which sources call it what. Please update this as more stories come out. This sources list is just a list of all generally reliable sources that cover this event as well as a couple unclear or others that cover it. The article chosen is the most recent one from each news source
PalauanReich ðŸ—£ï¸ 00:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Article is still having edit warring by possibly newly created sock puppet accounts. I have opened a new extended protection request to decrease the amount of edit warring and stop the sock puppeting. I would appreciate if rest of the top editors could support the request at that page. Thanks. @ Borgenland, TheWhiterCloud, FuzzyMagma, 25stargeneral, Blaylockjam10, and Borysk5: Ecrusized ( talk) 13:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
FuzzyMagma, you removed 'alleged' here. Thus WP is currently saying that Egyptian forces are currently actively participating in this fighting. The sources used are 1) a single ex-CIA analyst whose current local expertise or status is wholly unknown and whom even Middle Eastern Eye attributes. MEE does not say Egypt is doing any fighting, using its own voice, but we do in our infobox. 2) Al Arabiya, quotes RSF as claiming that 'foreign aircraft' were attacking them. This is near worthless as a claim, apart from their claims being questionable, how could they know the aircraft were 'foreign' without identifying them? 3) WSJ has now been added, which certainly endorses that regional powers support rival local factions, but it actually contradicts the idea that the regional powers are currently actively militarily engaged. The WSJ article actually says the opposite: "A powerful Libyan militia leader and the Egyptian military have sent military support to rival generals battling (in Sudan) … people familiar with the matter say, an illustration of how the fighting threatens to draw in regional powers." Fairly self-evidently a country cannot simultaneously be already actively fighting but also there be a risk that they might be 'drawn into' that fighting. The part of the WSJ which we quote says: "Egypt, which has officially called for an end to the fighting, sent jet fighters just before the fighting started and additional pilots soon after to support Gen. Burhan. " Again this is not proof of any military engagement by Egypt, though it does imply a willingness to become involved.
That regional powers may support rival local factions seems fairly indisputable, but, by analogy, US, Germany, France UK etc etc support Ukraine, very actively in some cases, but NONE of these are belligerents in that conflict, Not a single source AFAI can see does more than imply that Egypt could be actually engaged in fighting at present, or soon - ie they are NOT belligerents and it is WP:OR for us to say they are.
The text gives a fairly accurate, nuanced account of the possible support and or engagement by Egypt, but the infobox IMO makes a wholly unqualified claim, based on SYNTH-y reading of sources. When we are accusing a country of killing people - or attempting to do so - it is extremely irresponsible for us to not have rock-solid sourcing for the claim. We don't have a single source AFAI can see apart from the single ex-CIA man, who may be ill-informed, or even a fantasist for all we know. IMO we should remove the Egyptian involvement from the infobox, since an infobox is not a proper place for anything other than rock-solid certainties, which this at present is not IMO. Pincrete ( talk) 04:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the assertion that Egypt is a belligerent from the infobox. Pincrete ( talk) 05:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Can't get any clearer than thisNo source except a single retired CIA analyst actually says that Egyptian forces are actively involved at present and the WSJ implies they aren't YET if you read the rest of it. Pincrete ( talk) 10:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
sent jet fighters just before the fighting starteddoes not mean "now those jets are fighting", but it does indicate a general willingness to support the Govt 'side'. Pincrete ( talk) 10:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
None of the belligerents should be removed as long as reliable sources such as CNN, BBC and WSJ are reporting it, I cannot comment on Libya nor Wagner, since I don't know what is claimed about them nor what the sources say, but my whole point about Egypt is that the sources simply DON'T say that Egypt is a belligerent. Egypt favours one side - certainly - Egypt sent planes before and pilots since the start of the conflict, sure. But the assertion that Egypt is presently intentionally killing people in Sudan (or at least trying to kill them) - which is what being a belligerent means - is not supported by anyone except a former CIA analyst in MEE. Support takes many forms, political, diplomatic, technical etc, etc, but you have leapt to the conclusion that Egypt's 'support' necessarily equals active military engagement by them and their planes - it doesn't. We would expect much stronger and clearer sources if Egypt actually were fighting in Sudan, though WSJ speaks of it as a danger. I made the Ukraine analogy because you didn't seem to acknowledge that 'support' is not automatically the same as actively fighting. You still don't offer any sources that say what Egypt is supposedly doing. Pincrete ( talk) 17:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
UAE behind RSF's attempted coup in Sudan, leaked recording saysbut in the article it says
Social media users have circulated a recording attributed to the former head of Sudanese intelligence, Salah Gosh, accusing the United Arab Emirates of being behind recent events in Sudan..
Sudan's army chief says Haftar denies supporting RSF; no confirmation on Wagner Group’s involvementwhich contradict CNN report on the Wagner Group envolvement (but later will talk about that and the source should be dismissed anyway as it quotes primary sources). Other cited sources like The Guardian talks about Khalifa Haftar ties to RSF before this conflict. Should be removed from infobox
Egyptian equipment and supporting personnel were conducting exercises with the Sudanese military prior to the conflict. Wall Street Journal is behind a payement wall so please quote what is written in the article if you think it will provide more inforamtion. Should be removed from infobox
After initial confusion, the RSF accepted the explanation that Egyptian equipment and supporting personnel were conducting exercises with the Sudanese military prior to the outbreak of hostilitiescited to BBC. These are two conflicting accounts FuzzyMagma ( talk) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Someone removed (twice) the "supported by" section (including references to the Libyan National Army and the Wagner Group) on the ground that no consensus had been reached on these and that they were officially denied. It appears to be common practice to include supporters even despite denials (cf. South Sudanese Civil War, Mali War), is there any compelling reason not to do it here? Chaotic Enby ( talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
These "support" came before the conflict, not during it, as sources read in the sub-section. @ Borgenland: support by Wagner was before the conflict, so this is irrelevant, while support by Haftar is only vague one plane claimed supply from one source. RCB88 ( talk) 08:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree with @ RCB88:. Support that was provided before the conflict is not the same as support during the conflict. Also, multiple sources would be needed for confirmation of support during the conflict. EkoGraf ( talk) 08:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Isn't it time to create an article Chronology of the 2023 Sudan conflict? DBatura ( talk) 21:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
When would the Timeline section in the article become large enough to warrant its own article? What size would it have to be, would it be after a certain time period, etc. Not saying it should be done now, just asking when it would be necessary Presidentofyes12 ( talk) 14:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved per
snowball clause . Informal RM that only rehashes the previous 3 requests without bringing up any new information or justifying the proposed move. (
closed by non-admin page mover) –
Material
Works
18:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I suggest a move to Third Sudanese Civil War Oddballslover ( talk) 02:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)
This move suggestion was SNOW closed in mid-April - and any variant of 'Nth Civil War' seems to have been rejected as not supported by sources. What has changed?
Pincrete (
talk) 06:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
PS I've restored PalauanLibertarian's original comments and section heading … which I presume/hope were inadvertantly changed.
Pincrete (
talk)
06:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The Template:Country data derivatives don't seem to work for the non-state actors involved in support in the infobox? Chaotic Enby ( talk) 13:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: procedural close. Eighth RM on the matter, rehash of this one. Editors should wait a few months before opening a new RM, especially if it's proposing a change that has strong consensus against it. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 19:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflict – It doesn’t seem gramatically correct. I mean, it’s like saying “America Civil Warâ€, “Syria Civil Warâ€, “Romania Revolutionâ€, etc. WikiManUser21 ( talk) 16:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@
WikiManUser21: The previous discussions are not deleted. Scroll to the top of this talk page and you should see This page has previously been nominated to be moved. ... Not moved, 21 April 2023, from 2023 Sudan conflict to 2023 Sudanese conflict, see discussion.
The words see discussion link to
Special:PermanentLink/1151597951#Requested move 21 April 2023 where you can read the discussion and closing comments. Dates and links to the other discussions are listed there too.
Boud (
talk)
16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2023 Sudanese Armed Forces-Rapid Support Forces confrontation → 2023 Sudanese coup d'état attempt – RSF attempted to took over the power. Panam2014 ( talk) 13:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Do you all suggest we add the plane sightings over Khartoum or are they not notable enough to be included. Also, should I add in statements made by Anthony Blinken in Hanoi? TheWhiterCloud ( talk) 10:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Didn't want to WP:RM this because the article is unstable, but isn't 2023 Sudan clashes a more WP:CONCISE title? 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Do you do it in bullet points or all in one paragraph? The 64 Squares ( talk) 14:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@ PLATEL: Hemedti is by far the more common name of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. see here: Better known by the nickname "Hemedti", Gen Dagalo was named deputy chairman of the Transitional Military Council that took over after the army removed Mr Al Bashir... 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
where does this name come from? doesnt seem accurate? 217.102.250.25 ( talk) 10:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure if it is not going to be "notable enough", but I think that having reactions from different sides within Sudan and outside Sudan could help the reader understand some of the context behind the events happening, and a lot of other pages relating to Sudan has them too such as the Sudanese Revolution or 2019 Sudanese coup d'état. TheWhiterCloud ( talk) 12:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The Sudan revolutionary front doesn't control any territory there was a peace agreement signed between the government and the Sudanese revolutionary front in 2020. DitorWiki ( talk) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@ 25stargeneral, may you please explain more about why using the demonym in the title is not appropriate? It seems more grammatically correct to me. - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber) - 21:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I think there should be rather a "Sudanese Crisis (2018–)" article that this article being part of "Sudanese transition to democracy" Braganza ( talk) 09:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Can this be called third Sudanese civil war ? 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:249E:B5AB:FF65:E107 ( talk) 09:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I am asking this as I feel like this may drag on for a bit, and in case someone proposes a move to a coup or civil war. - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber) - 11:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The usage of {{ Abbreviation}} for RSF seems excessive for every usage of "RSF". The parenthetical "Rapid Support Forces (RSF)" should suffice in the lead paragraph.
SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces) hasn't been named in the lead paragraph, so some spare usage for that seems fine. 93 ( talk) 04:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly I am now sometimes confusing the SAF with the Sudanese Air Force. Maybe we could use "government forces" instead. Borgenland ( talk) 05:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@ FuzzyMagma: I did not remove "information abou assult on the ambassador and us convey". I moved it to a different section. I have also removed information about closure of airspace because it is already included. I do not have to make small and incremental edits at all. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If you google “sudan conflict†you’ll see many sources that call this conflict, so why can’t we move to 2023 Sudan conflict then? like 2008 Lebanon conflict 88.240.249.213 ( talk) 00:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW. Not described as such by any RS yet, not moved . ( non-admin closure) Ecrusized ( talk) 20:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan clashes → Third Sudanese Civil War – Technically, the crisis is escalating into a civil war (Probably it is right now). I mean, residential buildings are being bombed and the casualties number is increasing significally. However, we will wait for a bit until we change to this title. Just like in february and march 2011, when the Libyan War was called Libyan uprising and was changed to Libyan Civil War afterwards also in march 2011. TankDude2000 ( talk) 15:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
There's frustratingly little information on who controls what in the country, so I think putting a map in the infobox is a bit premature. We could add a map that shows areas of major fighting though Scaramouche33 ( talk) 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
For people with red-green weakness, the map is not to be used. Yunesxy ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
As many of you know, most editors despise the list-formatted "Reactions" section, especially the flag icons. This section should be converted into prose--not a bulleted list. Sourcing should not be primary, such as tweets. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Can this already be a civil war 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:A89F:9588:C1BC:A9C5 ( talk) 06:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
There doesn’t seem to be enough adequate sources to mention them as belligerents. Aside from the claims of a RSF commander and Cameron Hudson (who is generally considered unreliable and is imo nothing more than a journalist) there isn’t any evidence that Egypt is involved. That is a very big claim to make. There also is much evidence that the LNA is supporting the RSF aside from that single article. Ù…Øرر البوق ( talk) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Let’s be honest, the fighting was too intense for just being a coup d'é·tat plus the deaths are skyrocketing and the fighting is already a start of a Civil War so I think changing this article to the third Sudanese Civil War makes much sense, and it’s not wait for like months to just call it. This was a clearly a Civil War from the start. 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:F450:4765:4F5D:96BD ( talk) 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Sudan clashes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting addition of international reaction from Indonesia as provided by following news https://en.tempo.co/read/1717313/indonesia-aims-to-evacuate-citizens-in-conflict-stricken-sudan Muhammad Erril ( talk) 15:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Since most users agreed, shall we close the discussion and move the page? TankDude2000 ( talk) 05:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Described as a conflict by RS. Overwhelming support in discussion, moved . ( non-admin closure) Ecrusized ( talk) 08:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan clashes → 2023 Sudan conflict – Reliable sources have little consensus on what to call the ongoing situation in Sudan, but it is clear at this point that it is more advanced than merely "clashes"; the RSF have taken over large swaths of Sudan. I think it is reasonable to use 2023 Sudan conflict, as it describes the conflict more intensely, but does not label it as a "war" or "civil war," as neither have enough consensus. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE ( talk) 23:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Burhan and Dagalo have been making statements regarding the political situation. Hope someone can find a way to integrate them properly in this article since I'm not sure where to put them and I don't think the Reaction section is a good place to put them. Borgenland ( talk) 09:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Sudan conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Grammatical error in the Disinformation tab. Change "On 14 April, the official SAF page published a video it said was for operations carried out by the Sudanese Air Force against the RSF." to "On 14 April, the official SAF page published a video it said was of operations carried out by the Sudanese Air Force against the RSF.". TextbookRPHS ( talk) 16:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The source indicating that Ethiopia is supporting the RSF is just an accusation and has little to no evidence. Alleging someone is supporting someone isn't enough to be accurate. It should be removed or replaced with better sources at least. I do expect Ethiopia and especially Eritrea to lean towards the RSF because of their tensions with Sudan and Egypt.
In a nutshell, remove Ethiopia on RSF's side or keep it and replace it with better sources. IGotAPHD ( talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The rapid support forces and the Sudanese armed forces have there own flag which should be inserted other than the Sudanese flag DitorWiki ( talk) 14:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify, is it Merowe, Merwi, Marwi or Marawi? And there should be a standard name for that throughout the article. Borgenland ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all your clarifications! Borgenland ( talk) 14:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
To confuse you a little bit more: there are two locations of this name in the Sudan: (1)- /info/en/?search=Mero%C3%AB مرواه or مروي (2)- /info/en/?search=Merowe,_Sudan مروي number (1) is 200 km north-east of Khartoum number (2) is 220 km north of Khartoum at the Merowe dam and has an airport called Merowe airport Both are close to the river Nile. If the Egyptian soldiers would have been taken captive in (1), it would be of interest in regard of Ethiopia. If in (2), there is a direct train connection to Wadi Halfa and Egypt. The Arabic name of both locations is the same, so it would be important to make clear which one is meant. -- 2A00:20:C00F:32A:19C3:8F6C:4E5C:EF56 ( talk) 23:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone familiar with the situation know how accurate is the map presented in the infobox or if it's covered by RS? Elserbio00 ( talk) 09:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Given the way this conflict has developed since April 15, should the claims of control on April 15 still be in the intro? Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 21:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The Libyan general Haftar denied supporting the RSF, as has Wagner. As is said in the article in the section about foreign involvement. Shouldn't the wikibox reflect this? Genabab ( talk) 12:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Please don’t forget the casualties section when you update the death toll on the Introbox. Borgenland ( talk) 13:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Here are some good sources for an analysis section - some parts to improve the background based on what has already happened prior to 15 April; and some for a separate analysis section towards the end, after Disinformation and before the Reactions section, for understanding of the sociological structures in Sudan (military and civilian) and what possibilities are seen (by named sources, either the newspaper or a named individual, not by unnamed " analysts") for how this may evolve or resolve:
Boud ( talk) 12:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm on the opinion that Russia should be used in the belligerents sections of the infobox instead of Wagner. Wagner group is an arm of the Russian government that masquerades as being an independent entity. Ecrusized ( talk) 17:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
President Biden of USA posted on Twitter at 11:10 PM EST on 22/4/2023 that U.S. military forces conducted operations to extract government personnel from Khartoum. Backed up by multiple international news sources. [1] Spacetaters ( talk) 17:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Edit: NY Times reporting EU diplomats and citizens have started to be evacuated Sunday. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacetaters ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
References
It's too big and not formatted in the Wikipedia way. We've reached the point where it's not that informative just putting every single country's and organization's reactions. Not even the Reactions section in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article is that big. Yes, there's a separate article for that, but the main one is clear and concise. There's no need for the article to have "X country: X stated that Sudan is not safe to visit" times hundred. C4rstv0 ( talk) 21:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Add it, man. 46.188.173.25 ( talk) 10:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This move request was closed as not moved by editor Oddballslover at 00:29 on 25 April 2023 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflict – I propose to change the article title from 2023 Sudan conflict to 2023 Sudanese conflict DitorWiki ( talk) 14:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
the map should be improved + it shows Sudan's claimed borders and does not reflect the disputes Braganza ( talk) 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
People with red-green weakness cannot use the map, all provinces look the same. I cannot edit it. -- 2A00:20:C00F:32A:E597:8837:977C:744C ( talk) 23:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW close. Clearly no consensus to move, owing to examples of "civil war" not being the WP:COMMONNAME and a move being too soon. This topic could be returned to in the future if there is a sufficient demonstration that this is regularly described as a third civil war. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Czello ( music) 09:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan conflict → Third Sudanese Civil War
According to Fox News and Washington post this as a civil war:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/president-biden-calls-civil-war-sudan-unconscionable-us-embassy-personnel-evacuate https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/04/23/sudan-civil-war-violence-future/ Oddballslover ( talk) 23:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if the army eventually does secure the capital, and Hemedti retreats to Darfur, a civil war could well follow
Sudan is sliding towards civil warit is not yet! and it is only mentioned in the title
Sudanese analysts warn that the country is now heading toward an all-out civil war., again toward!
If the conflict drags on, more people in the extremely fragmented Sudanese society might take up arms, says analyst Alex de Waal., this is a speculation although it is true if it happens that this will be a Civil war, not a armed conflict as defined by International committee of the red cross, Amnesty international and Geneva Academy or even in Wikipedia
The term Sudanese Civil War refers to at least three separate conflicts: First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972), Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005), South Sudanese Civil War (2013–2020). It could also refer to other internal conflicts in Sudan and South Sudan: Lord's Resistance Army insurgency (1987–present), Ethnic violence in South Sudan, Sudanese nomadic conflicts, War in Darfur (2003–2020), Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile (2011–2020), 2023 Sudan conflict. As well as conflicts between Sudan and South Sudan after the breakup: Heglig Crisis (2012)
Should we change the Article to "2023 Sudanese civil war"? Since the rebels took some parts of the country, there are tanks in the streets, air force is active and etc Lucasmota0975 ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
You have to make a quick change, this is not just skirmishes, it is at the national level. the title should be civil war or rebellion in sudan 2023. Matias Taboadaxx ( talk) 11:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Sources are starting to call it a civil war: https://www.newsdrum.in/international/sudans-civil-war-enters-its-fourth-day-with-no-sight-of-any-relief
Also i think the clashes got intense enough to consider it as a civil war Lucasoliveira653 ( talk) 14:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Considering that Sudan has been involved in civil war twice, in case of Civil war, should we write it 2023 Sudan Civil War or the Third Sudanese Civil War or something else? Parham wiki ( talk) 22:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I want to bring a discussion because I will probability move this soon . Oddballslover talk 03:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Me and @ Wikiexplorationandhelping are having a disagreement with @ Oddballslover over which RM to keep open. For now, I'm keeping both open until we have input by the community over what we should all do. Input is of course appreciated down below. Thanks, - L'Mainerque - ( Woo, /talk/!) - 02:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflictRM should be closed. — Nythar ( 💬- ðŸ€) 02:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@FusionSub look at Talk:2023 Sudan conflict#Requested move 24 April 2023 there is a lot of links. Oddballslobver ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's a civil war now sadly 95.148.25.109 ( talk) 16:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I propose to change the article title from 2023 Sudan conflict to 2023 Sudan crisis. Just like the 1958 Lebanon crisis and the Congo Crisis DitorWiki ( talk) 01:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I was going to put the denials in again as there was no reason given for their removal (at least that I could see...) but I saw that denials shouldn't be placed there. Could I ask why that is? Genabab ( talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Article is having some heavy edit warring lately due to its In The News (ITN) status. I have opened a extended protection request to decrease the amount of edit warring. I would appreciate if rest of the top editors could support the request at that page. Thanks. @ Borgenland, TheWhiterCloud, FuzzyMagma, 25stargeneral, Blaylockjam10, and Borysk5: Ecrusized ( talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Why de facto civil war is part of democratic transition? As far as I know it is power struggle and it has anything to do with democratisation Polonianova ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Anyone think we should rename the page as such? Theasiancowboy ( talk) 12:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
As we can see Khartoum is not only area of battle and Sudan is a pretty large country and there are battles happening in other areas when will thouse battles have their own page 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:2542:282B:5FEB:7683 ( talk) 05:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Egypt is currently listed as a belligerent, with a note pointing to the section 2023 Sudan conflict#Egypt. That section, however, does not support naming Egypt as a party here: the presence of a few (destroyed) fighter jets and some personnel has been explained with exercises predating the conflict. RSf themselves, according to our text, accepted that explanation and repatriated the Egyptian prisoners. The WSJ is invoked as a source here, but the reference is missing. The article can probably be found, but at this point it is also outdated. The most forceful source for the section is some ex-CIA's Twitter account. That's not enough, bluecheck or not.
This may be an instance where Wikipedia making a claim could have outsized effects, considering everybody else is (rightly) equivocating on the question. Let's not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, please. I'm removing Egypt as a belligerent and will try to defuse the section on the topic. K. Oblique 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we should make a article about a refugee crisis, I've seen evidence of thousands of Khartoum residents and thousands of other people from all across the story fleeing to Chad and Egypt, the last reports reported the number at at least 20,000 for Chad but nothing for Egypt this number has probably rised as the conflict intensified even more after the ceasefire. I think there is enough info and enough intensity to make another article related to this, I'll also try and find sources to support this possibly.
NYMan6 ( talk) 20:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Is the Sudan Doctors Union the same as the Sudan Doctors Syndicate? I keep finding variations in news outlets. Borgenland ( talk) 14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Sudan conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this to: Rapid Support Forces supported by:
Wagner Group is a private company, similar to Triple Canopy and Blackwater (company) both operated in Iraq with contracts from US army. They have been involved in different contracts but they are not Russia o considered a Russian army FuzzyMagma ( talk) 18:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It is widely speculated that the Wagner Group is used by the Russian government… for various reasons, does not mean they ARE directly in Russia's chain of command, nor that anyone knows what the relationship actually IS - hence "speculated" - and we shouldn't imply that they are officially 'Russian'. The underlying problems though to my mind are that we are asking the infobox to give nuanced answers, when it is meant to only have simple factual, uncontroversial 'facts', and to an extent we are asking this article to cover matters better covered on the Wagner group article, or elsewhere. Pincrete ( talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
References
"From a legal perspective, Wagner doesn't exist," says Sorcha MacLeod
This is not really a discussion about the move, more a centralized place to keep the sources and track which sources call it what. Please update this as more stories come out. This sources list is just a list of all generally reliable sources that cover this event as well as a couple unclear or others that cover it. The article chosen is the most recent one from each news source
PalauanReich ðŸ—£ï¸ 00:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Article is still having edit warring by possibly newly created sock puppet accounts. I have opened a new extended protection request to decrease the amount of edit warring and stop the sock puppeting. I would appreciate if rest of the top editors could support the request at that page. Thanks. @ Borgenland, TheWhiterCloud, FuzzyMagma, 25stargeneral, Blaylockjam10, and Borysk5: Ecrusized ( talk) 13:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
FuzzyMagma, you removed 'alleged' here. Thus WP is currently saying that Egyptian forces are currently actively participating in this fighting. The sources used are 1) a single ex-CIA analyst whose current local expertise or status is wholly unknown and whom even Middle Eastern Eye attributes. MEE does not say Egypt is doing any fighting, using its own voice, but we do in our infobox. 2) Al Arabiya, quotes RSF as claiming that 'foreign aircraft' were attacking them. This is near worthless as a claim, apart from their claims being questionable, how could they know the aircraft were 'foreign' without identifying them? 3) WSJ has now been added, which certainly endorses that regional powers support rival local factions, but it actually contradicts the idea that the regional powers are currently actively militarily engaged. The WSJ article actually says the opposite: "A powerful Libyan militia leader and the Egyptian military have sent military support to rival generals battling (in Sudan) … people familiar with the matter say, an illustration of how the fighting threatens to draw in regional powers." Fairly self-evidently a country cannot simultaneously be already actively fighting but also there be a risk that they might be 'drawn into' that fighting. The part of the WSJ which we quote says: "Egypt, which has officially called for an end to the fighting, sent jet fighters just before the fighting started and additional pilots soon after to support Gen. Burhan. " Again this is not proof of any military engagement by Egypt, though it does imply a willingness to become involved.
That regional powers may support rival local factions seems fairly indisputable, but, by analogy, US, Germany, France UK etc etc support Ukraine, very actively in some cases, but NONE of these are belligerents in that conflict, Not a single source AFAI can see does more than imply that Egypt could be actually engaged in fighting at present, or soon - ie they are NOT belligerents and it is WP:OR for us to say they are.
The text gives a fairly accurate, nuanced account of the possible support and or engagement by Egypt, but the infobox IMO makes a wholly unqualified claim, based on SYNTH-y reading of sources. When we are accusing a country of killing people - or attempting to do so - it is extremely irresponsible for us to not have rock-solid sourcing for the claim. We don't have a single source AFAI can see apart from the single ex-CIA man, who may be ill-informed, or even a fantasist for all we know. IMO we should remove the Egyptian involvement from the infobox, since an infobox is not a proper place for anything other than rock-solid certainties, which this at present is not IMO. Pincrete ( talk) 04:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the assertion that Egypt is a belligerent from the infobox. Pincrete ( talk) 05:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Can't get any clearer than thisNo source except a single retired CIA analyst actually says that Egyptian forces are actively involved at present and the WSJ implies they aren't YET if you read the rest of it. Pincrete ( talk) 10:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
sent jet fighters just before the fighting starteddoes not mean "now those jets are fighting", but it does indicate a general willingness to support the Govt 'side'. Pincrete ( talk) 10:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
None of the belligerents should be removed as long as reliable sources such as CNN, BBC and WSJ are reporting it, I cannot comment on Libya nor Wagner, since I don't know what is claimed about them nor what the sources say, but my whole point about Egypt is that the sources simply DON'T say that Egypt is a belligerent. Egypt favours one side - certainly - Egypt sent planes before and pilots since the start of the conflict, sure. But the assertion that Egypt is presently intentionally killing people in Sudan (or at least trying to kill them) - which is what being a belligerent means - is not supported by anyone except a former CIA analyst in MEE. Support takes many forms, political, diplomatic, technical etc, etc, but you have leapt to the conclusion that Egypt's 'support' necessarily equals active military engagement by them and their planes - it doesn't. We would expect much stronger and clearer sources if Egypt actually were fighting in Sudan, though WSJ speaks of it as a danger. I made the Ukraine analogy because you didn't seem to acknowledge that 'support' is not automatically the same as actively fighting. You still don't offer any sources that say what Egypt is supposedly doing. Pincrete ( talk) 17:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
UAE behind RSF's attempted coup in Sudan, leaked recording saysbut in the article it says
Social media users have circulated a recording attributed to the former head of Sudanese intelligence, Salah Gosh, accusing the United Arab Emirates of being behind recent events in Sudan..
Sudan's army chief says Haftar denies supporting RSF; no confirmation on Wagner Group’s involvementwhich contradict CNN report on the Wagner Group envolvement (but later will talk about that and the source should be dismissed anyway as it quotes primary sources). Other cited sources like The Guardian talks about Khalifa Haftar ties to RSF before this conflict. Should be removed from infobox
Egyptian equipment and supporting personnel were conducting exercises with the Sudanese military prior to the conflict. Wall Street Journal is behind a payement wall so please quote what is written in the article if you think it will provide more inforamtion. Should be removed from infobox
After initial confusion, the RSF accepted the explanation that Egyptian equipment and supporting personnel were conducting exercises with the Sudanese military prior to the outbreak of hostilitiescited to BBC. These are two conflicting accounts FuzzyMagma ( talk) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Someone removed (twice) the "supported by" section (including references to the Libyan National Army and the Wagner Group) on the ground that no consensus had been reached on these and that they were officially denied. It appears to be common practice to include supporters even despite denials (cf. South Sudanese Civil War, Mali War), is there any compelling reason not to do it here? Chaotic Enby ( talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
These "support" came before the conflict, not during it, as sources read in the sub-section. @ Borgenland: support by Wagner was before the conflict, so this is irrelevant, while support by Haftar is only vague one plane claimed supply from one source. RCB88 ( talk) 08:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree with @ RCB88:. Support that was provided before the conflict is not the same as support during the conflict. Also, multiple sources would be needed for confirmation of support during the conflict. EkoGraf ( talk) 08:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Isn't it time to create an article Chronology of the 2023 Sudan conflict? DBatura ( talk) 21:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
When would the Timeline section in the article become large enough to warrant its own article? What size would it have to be, would it be after a certain time period, etc. Not saying it should be done now, just asking when it would be necessary Presidentofyes12 ( talk) 14:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved per
snowball clause . Informal RM that only rehashes the previous 3 requests without bringing up any new information or justifying the proposed move. (
closed by non-admin page mover) –
Material
Works
18:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I suggest a move to Third Sudanese Civil War Oddballslover ( talk) 02:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)
This move suggestion was SNOW closed in mid-April - and any variant of 'Nth Civil War' seems to have been rejected as not supported by sources. What has changed?
Pincrete (
talk) 06:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
PS I've restored PalauanLibertarian's original comments and section heading … which I presume/hope were inadvertantly changed.
Pincrete (
talk)
06:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The Template:Country data derivatives don't seem to work for the non-state actors involved in support in the infobox? Chaotic Enby ( talk) 13:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: procedural close. Eighth RM on the matter, rehash of this one. Editors should wait a few months before opening a new RM, especially if it's proposing a change that has strong consensus against it. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 19:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
2023 Sudan conflict → 2023 Sudanese conflict – It doesn’t seem gramatically correct. I mean, it’s like saying “America Civil Warâ€, “Syria Civil Warâ€, “Romania Revolutionâ€, etc. WikiManUser21 ( talk) 16:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@
WikiManUser21: The previous discussions are not deleted. Scroll to the top of this talk page and you should see This page has previously been nominated to be moved. ... Not moved, 21 April 2023, from 2023 Sudan conflict to 2023 Sudanese conflict, see discussion.
The words see discussion link to
Special:PermanentLink/1151597951#Requested move 21 April 2023 where you can read the discussion and closing comments. Dates and links to the other discussions are listed there too.
Boud (
talk)
16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)