Jump to content

Talk:Second Sudanese Civil War

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

Most deadly conflict - not true

[edit]

It says it is the most deadly conflict since WWII. This is no longer the case. The reference goes to page written in 2001, and it may have been true then. However, now the most deadly conflict since WWII is the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo which has claimed the lives of over 5,000,00 people (from a widely cited report by the IRC). This statistic is used widely in academic and non academic sources and is easy to find on the internet. Time to update this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.34 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many is 5,000,00? Does anyone reeaad what they think they wrote anymore. 75.174.132.218 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

I reverted some posts that seemed to just have been added for bias, things like "This article is biased and untrue" and "SPLA was heavily supported by western countries and Christian groups". There was no references, just the text. If someone wants to revert my changes with references, fine by me. --207.250.85.58 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

[edit]

I cannot see why "Outbreak" is not a sutible heading; indeed I think it sums up nicley the ideas of the paragraph. I do agree, however, that the chronology is confusing- it is very hard to read it and understand. A timeline outlining the basics of the war would be a welcome feature.

--User:CrucialCoconuts/CrucialCoconuts 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Early discussion

[edit]

The section under the heading "Outbreak" has some problems with chronology; the first two paragraphs need to be disentangled. Also, why is "Outbreak" an appropriate heading?

--babbage 13:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right. It is confused. Hopefully we can sort that out. Why is "outbreak" not an appropriate heading? If you can think of a better one, feel free to put it in.

Peregrine981 03:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Reading the content of this article, and considering the lack of an article on the first Sudanese civil war, I think it would be better if we retitled the article Sudanese Civil War. This would make the article better because it would be more holistic. If that article approached size limits we could think again about splitting the articles. :ChrisG 18:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Allright, if you like the idea. I suppose it makes sense considering the lack of expertise on the area available on Wikipedia.
Peregrine981 02:12, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Lack of expertise shouldn't mean we ignore facts. The first Sudanese civil war can be a candidate of WP:Bias if necessary - Xed 02:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the current revision, the last three paragraphs of the section "Background and causes" and the start of "Outbreak" are still a bit confused. The narrative doesn't flow smoothly. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

And the tail end of "Outbreak" cuts off mid-sentence. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:20, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) And that fragment seems identical to the beginning of "1985-1991". -- Jmabel | Talk 09:25, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

What can possibly be meant by, "The civil war was particularly divisive (see “Civil Strife” below)." No such section, and it should go without saying that war is divisive. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've addressed the cut off sentence and "divisive" problem. The divisive sentence was redundant, and the repeating sentence is an artifact of cut and paste from "History of Sudan". The flow problems result from being cut and paste from that article, which was in its own turn cut and pasted from the U.S. Dept of State. Since then many minor revisions and additions have been made, making it slightly convoluted. Hopefully we can slowly clean it up. Peregrine981 11:18, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I just want to know how the statement "Due to the North's military superiority, most of southern Sudan was decimated and the rebels achieved little.", can be made. They have regional autonomy and a scheduled referendum in 2011 on possible independence. Sounds to me like the rebels achieved their aims. Diggerjohn111 23:25 (UTC)

[edit]

The last paragraph on this website is copyrighted. [1] (It starts with "In August 1991, internal dissention")

The second paragraph under Conduct of the war: 1991-2001 has the first sentence of the copyrighted paragraph word for word. In the fourth paragraph under the same title the rest of the copyrighted paragraph can be found. The fourth paragraph begins with "In September 1992, William Nyon Bany"

I was wondering if we have permission from GlobalSecurity.org or if I am wrong. Also other parts of our article is copied from the same website.

I wasn't sure who to ask about this or what to do so I posted it here.NeoJustin 17:01 Nov. 14, 2004 (UTC)

I got that text from History of Sudan. Looking back I see that User:Stan Shebs got it from the U.S. department of State website. [2] I think that clears us of any copyright violation, although it is somewhat dismaying for the quality of this article, as it now seems that about 75-80% is lifted straight from the US government. Peregrine981 03:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Infuriating

[edit]

"This has infuriated many groups…": Are you saying that the Borgen project has infuriated these groups? Or what? On a second read, I suspect that is not what you mean. Could you reword this more clearly, and also with some thought as to what is relevant to an article on an African war, not one on U.S. politics? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment

[edit]

A very nice article, long, detailed, and with pictures, maps, and infobox. Needs references though. LordAmeth 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1002 agreement and the Darfur conflict?

[edit]

From the article:

The agreement reached during this war in 2002 is also one of the causes of the Darfur conflict.

Should "2002" be replaced with "2005" or was there some agreement in 2002 that our article glosses over? AxelBoldt 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the conflict

[edit]

Not sure about the line "the rebels achieved little" in relation to the outcome of the conflict. The CPA provisions for power and wealth sharing, national elections, and determination that the people of Southern Sudan have the right to self determination and referendum on secession, are all substantial gains for the south. The line should be removed as it is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.121.89 (talk • contribs)

I kind of agree. The idea also seems to be the peace agreement accomplished nothing, except cause fighting in Darfur, and I don't think that's fair at all.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this conflict can be considered a SPLA victory, since the rebels achieved their main aims of gaining independence for the South. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Darfur has next to nothing to do with this war. The Darfur question is wholly a northern affair, one that by chance, occured after this conflict. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

[edit]

I cannot see why "Outbreak" is not a sutible heading; indeed I think it sums up nicley the ideas of the paragraph. I do agree, however, that the chronology is confusing- it is very hard to read it and understand. A timeline outlining the basics of the war would be a welcome feature.

--User:CrucialCoconuts/CrucialCoconuts 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

[edit]

SPLA-Nasir, SSLM and Anyanya II were all predominantly Nuer collaborationist militia (read their respective articles), it doesn't make much sense to keep them on the anti-government side of combatants. I'm not sure whether to move them on the pro-government side or give them their own area. They behaved much in the same way the Čhetniks did during the Yugoslav front of WWII, only difference is that the Čhetniks actually fought against the Nazis and Ustaša up until a point.

N.B. I removed the flag from Anyanya II because it was the flag of Anyanya I. Anyanya II has no reported iconography. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Second 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Second 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: African Politics== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MOHAMMMED ABBAS, Bot.mod22 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CalUser777, Angelinaespinoza.

Changes to infobox

[edit]

@محرر البوق: For clarity's sake, I will explain in detail why your changes were problematic:

  • The "Army for the Liberation of Rwanda" did not fight in the Second Sudanese Civil War. The Rwandan militants which moved into Sudan were still part of the (Ex-)FAR and Interahamwe; upon arriving, they joined the Sudanese security forces as militias. These militias never operated on their own, and they never joined the "Army for the Liberation of Rwanda".
  • "Combat aid" is about countries which provided weapons to Sudan. The countries which you moved under this section such as Iraq and China (as explained in the notes) directly fought in the civil war.
  • The "Sudanese Alliance Forces" are not the same as the Sudanese National Alliance.
  • Riek Machar and other SPLA commanders were listed on both sides because they fought on both sides, as outlined in the article.
  • Again, "Combat aid" is wrong for Uganda, Ethiopia, etc. which fought in this civil war with thousands of troops; for the same reason, their respective leaders are listed as commanders.

Applodion (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background and causes

[edit]

Hi Applodion, don't you think that the Pibor massacre is out of place in the Background and causes section? Stara Marusya (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be? Murle and Nuer groups were major players in this war, and the massacre was one of the largest in the pre-war period. Applodion (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Pibor massacre was not in the pre-war period. Stara Marusya (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stara Marusya: (Facepalming myself) Ok, sorry, I somehow thought that you were editing the South Sudanese Civil War, not the Second Sudanese Civil War. How did I not notice this? Anyway, I have restored your changes. Sorry for everything. Applodion (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Stara Marusya (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea's Involvement in Second Sudanese Civil War

[edit]

Hello I would like to put into serious question with regards to the validity of Eritrea's involvement in this war. The referenced writer Mr. Plaut, has an agenda against Eritrea and has written numerous unsubstantiated accusations against the nation. I wish to request a review of the source, and serious consideration with regards to any information that is derived from Plaut. Ericandude (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umh, no. Plaut is a highly reliable author, and you are making unsubstantiated accusations. The Eritrean involvement in this war was confirmed by many veterans, and was also included in books/articles by other researchers like Alex de Waal, Dan Connell, and Anthony Clayton. Applodion (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Sudanese_Civil_War&oldid=1227971485"