Talk:Darfur conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles Darfur conflict has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 African military history task force
Wikipedia CD Selection Darfur conflict is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
To-do list for Darfur conflict: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • "Main points of the deal" - I have added Link 68, which talks in details about the main points of the deal. Please add the important points in the main text. It is too long, may be it can be included as a sub-category.Indrajitneogi 18:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Issues of Non-Intervention

The short section on intervention by other nations in the conflict was both very biased and misleading. While it is true that the United States government remains opposed to the ICC, the fact that individuals could be tried for war crimes committed during the current war in Iraq is not germane to the article. Moreover, while China belives Sudan might be a good supplier of oil in the future (it currently is just starting to exploit its reserves to any great degree), it has never deployed troops as far as the Middle East for any type of peace keeping mission. This is due primarily to the diplomatic problems that would ensue with the United States and Russia. Therefore, to purport that oil is primary reasons for not having a presence in the conflict is deceptive.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.164.214.204 (talk • contribs) on 25 July 2005.

I agree that this sections smacks of POV. I will attempt to make it a little less biased. Please review my changes to see that they are an improvement. Also, I think that this section should definitely be expanded. The debate over intervention in Darfur is a crucial issue, and I don't think that coverage of this debate should be relagated to a couple of parargraphs. Njerseyguy 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Note: I have added an editor and date for the anon edit starting this section. Note that the article changed considerably between the above two comments. See here for the article on 25 July 2005. - BT 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I would disagree with your last statement unless you can define for whom it is critical. The international involvement, in terms of stopping the violence or at least offering security, has been non-existent. It is non-existent because no one has made a serious attempt to implement something on the ground. This article is just below the size when people start thinking of breaking out subpages. It is at this level because all of the diplomatic sound and fury signifying nothing that had slowly accreted on the article are now at International response to the Darfur conflict. Please take a look at that article and ensure that any additions to the "international response" section are summaries of the content in that breakout article.
I have roughly structured this article to emphasize the causes and progression of the conflict in Darfur. I find it astonishing that editors have gotten into an uproar over, for example, a French response to the American response to the Darfur conflict but didn't murmur over the complete lack of an explanation of why the conflict is happening in the first place besides a muttered comment about ethnic strife.
Quite frankly, there is little about the international response to this conflict that is exceptional within the set of international reactions to similar large scale human rights abuses. There are a few key points that deserve explication, such as the peace agreement, the AU force, the interaction with the Naivasha peace process in the south and the fact that the advocacy rally in DC surprisingly forced a brief US policy response. The general arguments for and against intervention are already started at responsibility to protect, non-intervention and humanitarian intervention. - BT 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you except for one point. Statements such as "A movement advocating for humanitarian intervention has emerged in several countries since then." should be cited. I do not think this is a good sentence without a citation, and would prefer that it were removed.Njerseyguy 23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I had assumed that the neighboring photo from a Save Darfur Coalition rally was evidence enough that such a movement existed. Perhaps we simply have different ideas of what an "advocacy movement" looks like. If you feel that this is not clear, please feel free to remove and ask for a source here. There have been enough activists on this page that someone will probably get around to finding a satisfactory citation. - BT 04:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] original comments

I read the piece at the Wall Street Journal today [1]. I heard Terry Gross' coverage, featuring Capt. Brian Steidle, eariler this week [2]. I am outraged. I had hoped that the U.K. would step in [3], but that was many months ago. This must not be remembered as another Rwanda. Who will stop it?! <>< tbc 21:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are U.K. national interests in this conflict that would warrant putting British troops in harm's way? Certainly, there are no U.S. interests involved and I don't want to see a single American come back in a body bag in that conflict. Thanks but no thanks. Jtpaladin 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Arab vs. Black

The opening paragraph of this entry contains an inaccuracy, namely that the Janjaweed are drawn from the Baggara Arabs. This is not correct. The great majority of the Janjaweed are from the Abbala (camel-herding Arabs). Most of the Baggara have been notable for their neutrality in the conflict. Please can this be corrected.

It is amazing how the western media tries to distort the truth by portraying Darfur conflict as a "racial conflict". The media always show the victims of Darfur conflict and mentions that these blacks are being killed by Arab government. This is a very bad thing. However, the media rarely shows the leadership of this Arab goverment. The Arab leaders are as black as the victims themselves. It is probably due to the ignorance by western media unless their is some other motive behind this disortion.

Has anyone read the article in January's Glamour Magazine pg82? It's called, "Who can save these women from rape?" and has to do with the ethic cleansing angle of the Janjaweed. These men need to be stopped. Says Samantha Power, quoted in the article: "They know how damaging rape is to the psyche of Muslim women; that's why it's so effective."

How does one find out how the leaders of these men are. I am a yogi, but if ever a destructive force was called for, it's in a case like this. Yogis have joined in meditation in the past, during wars, against the nazis for example. In a fantasy scenario, I'd make all of these acts of violence cause the perpetrator to feel the pain of his victim, but multiplied by 100x. Then he'd be left alone in a dark room w/ plenty of sharp razors.

I'm uneasy about calling this article "Darfur Genocide"; the UN is only saying so far that there is a risk of genocide, and the pattern of events is rather more like Yugoslavia than Rwanda. The term "Darfur crisis" is more neutral and is in any case more widely used, according to Google's results. -- ChrisO 23:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Um, can you source that 15-30K figure? I can find it quoted without attribution to USAID by CNN[4] (and several others), but not on the USAID website. - Mustafaa 19:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The figure is given in USAID's April/May newsletter, at http://www.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/AprMay04_FrontLines.pdf . -- ChrisO 07:27, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! - Mustafaa 08:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is correct, stating that the Darfur conflict is not "Arab v. Black": it seems to me that the focus upon Darfur alone for this purpose is myopic -- there always are going to be odd stragglers, and situations, which do not fit into the overall picture, in any civil war. Just so, in Darfur, there are the odd impacted "Arab" villages, and the exceptional "African" gangs, which do not fit into the general journalistic picture.

The point for policy, though, surely must be derived from a broader focus: at least national, particularly if one side or the other in this local conflict is obtaining disproportionate aid and military support from the national government. Is this the case? Is "Darfur" really being run from Khartoum? Or not? I am not certain that anyone can tell us this, for sure, but I would like to know -- before stating as positively as some here do that this is not an issue of "Arab v. Black".

At the national level, in Sudan, things appear to be deteriorating very rapidly today into "Arab v. Black", or "Muslim v. Black", or "Black v. non-Black", or "North African v. African", or "Khartoum v. African" -- some simple category, anyway, corresponding to the former civil war lines there, in the wake of Garang's death. If that is how the Sudanese and their politicians see it, then, nationally in Khartoum, all that has to be done is to draw the connection between national Khartoum politics and local Darfur events, for journalists to be able to say that Darfur is subject to the same simple category.

How to deny that? If I read reliable reports that Khartoum is supporting those most guilty of brutalizing the villagers in Darfur, I reasonably would attribute Khartoum politics to the Darfur situation. And that Khartoum politics increasingly appears to be ethnic/racial once again, very sadly today.

That one BBC piece cited in the article would be simplistic. Splitting hairs by insisting that Darfur "is not Arab v. Black" would seem not just myopic, then, but deliberate obfuscation -- someone would be hiding something, out there -- ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing, and needs to be identified clearly, with simple if not simplistic labels.

At the very least this article ought to be given a Wikipedia "Disputed" tag, now, as for example the Wikipedia Terrorism article is -- particularly if that "Note" at the beginning of this Darfur article is going to remain.

--Kessler 17:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


It is not possible to determine whether the conflict is Arab vs. Black or not by looking at pictures. Arabs come in all colors. The North American and Western European assumption that we could tell who is black if the media would only show us pictures - as the first entry in this section states - only underscores a Eurocentric definition of race, where dark skin is only black and a drop of black blood makes one black. Race is not quite so clear cut in other parts of the world. If the people themselves describe it as a conflict between Arab and African, then it should be recognized that race plays a part in the conflict. I guess the question would then be: Is that an attempt to manipulate international opinion or a true description of the origins of the conflict? But until Western journalists attempt to understand how race is defined locally, they will not be able to present thoughtful information on this question. --Starapple 13:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Buried in the body of the article is a point more important than Arab vs. Black is that both sides in Darfur are Muslim. I believe this needs to be in the very beginning, for several reasons.

The older civil war (1956-2005) between the Khartoum government and the southerm SPLM did involve forcing Arabic language and Islamic law on a population that had other languages (Nilotic, Bantu, etc.) and had significant Christian and animist beliefs. Frequently, this civil war, brought to a conclusion by the Power-Sharing Agreement, is confused with the Darfur conflict.

--[[User:Hcberkowitz|Hcberkowitz] 21:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make? People are being killed and the fact that anyone is pondering what kind of label to place on it seems more so a justification and takes away from the fact that people are being killed.

It makes two very important differences. One, this is an encyclopedia, and the point is to present the complete factual situation on a topic in a neutral way. The "African vs. Arab" distinction goes to the factual context of the conflict. You are right that action should be focused on the killings, but how effective can that action be without basic knowledge of the situation? Wikipedia's purpose is providing the knowledge, including the knowledge of how this conflict is being understood by its participants and the rest of the world. Labels should be used because the participants in the conflict use them, and they therefore define the conflict--a complete understanding of the situation in Darfur is not possible without knowing about the labels. -Fsotrain09

[edit] Just a little point

"The only possible solution to the conflict is threat of sanctions."

Seems to be a line totally based on opinion, rather than fact.

Changing it to "one possible course of action is the threat of sanctions" or somesuch makes much more sense.

I won't make the change, but I'll leave it up to you.

- Wee Jensaarai

That sentence got me thinking... Has there ever been a military conflict that was solved by sanctions alone? I can't think of one. Seabhcan 11:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heh

I was going for a different effect but thanks for the pointer. Since it is an ongoing event, the only possible solution NOW that is most likely to be put into action.

I changed it so it doesn't seem so opinionated anymore.

[edit] NPOV message

There seems to be a continual equation with the black-africans as just Africans and the arab-africans as Arabs. This needs to be corrected it is laced throughout the article. Both are just as african as the other. I have no idea if this was intentional or not but one could misread the article and make unfortunate assumptions. I will not edit the article content until this matter is taken up here and reaches consensus. Arminius 15:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page hasn't really been the source of much edit conflict, has it? It would be better if you could make the changes you see fit to redress this imbalance rather than sticking one of those ugly NPOV headers on it. In particular the second section seems more or less ok. It is the lead section that could confuse the casual reader. Pcb21| Pete 15:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you. Arminius 19:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like your changes. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 23:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I tried to put a note at the beginning about the flexibility of these terms, but Mustafa removed it. The ignorance shown in the press seems stemmed from the idea that Arab and black are mutually exclusive or objective terms. One reading of the conflict is that many of the Janjaweed did not identify as Arab only a generation ago. This changes things decidedly toward the political and away from the ethnic. Can we just use the terms haphazardly and assume that since they are self-identified, then readers can make up their own minds? By using the terms we give them legitimacy. I believe we need to counteract that legitimacy by explaining that the terms aren't set in stone. I can be an Arab in your eyes, but not in the eyes of your brother. I can be black tomorrow even if I am not today.

--Zachbe 14:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your point; I think putting it at the very start is too intrusive, but a note on the flexibility of these "ethnic" terms could certainly be good for the article. That applies especially for "Arab", since virtually all Arabs are Arab by self-definition, not descent. But then again, maybe that's better dealt with in Arab... - Mustafaa
That is an extremely valid point. Most Arabs, are Arab by self definition. Not all Arabs may be seen as Arabs by the rest of the world, but they are definitely Arabs in their own mindset. And that is what counts. Majed Abdullah, a former Saudi Arabian football striker, with dominant black African features is no less Arab, then Saddam Hussein. It is also relative when speaking about Latinos, Sammy Sosa (black), would be no less Latino than Fidel Castro (white), as race really has no bearing on ethnicity. Although Americans have always been at a crossroads when coming to racial barriers, the Latino and Arab world have had less of a problem, because they have always viewed ethnicity over race, rather than the latter (race over ethnicity), which was the cause of severe racial tension in countries like the United States and South Africa. All that can be said, is that ethnicity is something you can classify yourself as, no matter what anyone says, because it is something that you can be born into. Whereas race is something that you can never choose, because it is something that you are born as. So going back to whether Sudanese are Arabs, yes they are. They also happen to be black skinned, so what? They're Black Arabs, which have never been uncommon, even in the Middle East. Look at the Yemenis, and certain Saudis. And one BIG contrast I've learnt, is that northerners (who can generally be identified as Arabs), tend to be MUCH lighter skinned than the the non-Arab blacks of the south (not all of them, but the vast majority, I would know, I've been to Sudan, as I'm Sudanese). Even the facial features vary, and are closer to those of the Ethiopians. To say they are non-distinguishable from each other is a little far-fetched.

[edit] Oil?

Is there some resource like oil that could concite international interest or is it just all humanitarian concern?

Shortest answer: Possibly.
I am not aware of people saying that the international interest is due to oil (in comparison the chorus claiming that that was true in Iraq is deafening). The humanitarian concern is very real.
However oil was an absolute critical part of the north/south civil war and its settlement. The indications are that there is oil under Darfur too. Certainly southern Darfur has already been carved up into oil rights zones - see for instance http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/2.htm. Claims are surfacing all over the place that Khartoum is desperate to retain control of Darfur at all costs so that it can build a pipeline, and that it has been using the janjaweed in an unbelieveably cynical way.

Some links : Sudan Oil & Gas News some guys blog with a list of useful links. Pcb21| Pete 12:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe many people have argued that countries such as France has opposed sanctions against Sudan because it has an oil deal with the government. Harris0 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for China. There are also the concerns of the conflict spreading (which proved true), and of how to manage the relationship with Khartoum, which is viewed by Washington as an ally in the War on Terror. So, in a word, geopolitics, independent of material resources. -Fsotrain09 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
these people seem to have a lot of information on economic motivations Traprock Peace Center --84.4.143.141 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Whoever gets the oil lives in heatlh and prosperity, whoever loses the oil lives in sickness and poverty. Now the real problem is which side do we support in order to steal the most for ourselves? The Chinese may have beaten us to the first punch but now we have a chance to hook em to the chin.

[edit] From the Prophet's Farewell Speech

“O People,” the prophet (pbuh) had said, “just as you regard as sacred this month and this day [the day of Hajj] and this city [Mecca], so, too, regard the life and property of every Muslim. All mankind is [descended] from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab. A white man has no superiority over black nor a black over white, except on account of piety and good deeds.” A recent anon edit put this here, and it doesn't belong in the article, but it's certainly relevant in a broader sense, so I'm sticking it here in discussion for the heck of it. - Mustafaa 05:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Color in Sudan

You mention that color in Sudan is one of the core roots of the issue. While that does seem to be true - Janjaweed rhetoric seems to focus on the zurug - both sides are clearly black in the English sense of the term (just look at the president!.) Would it not be better to say something like "darker black" and make the nature of the contrast explicit? - Mustafaa 20:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, an italian newspaper published today [5] an article about janjaweed with a streaming video, and to my eyes they seem black too, while descriptions I've read before make me think about a bigger difference. GhePeU 14:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ICC involvement

The Bush administration is in the difficult position of either swallowing some of its qualms about the ICC or vetoing a resolution to prosecute people for the pillage, slaughter and rape in Darfur that Washington itself has called genocide. [6]

[edit] Updated death toll to over 300,000

Cited ongoing BBC article.

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in stopping this slaughter, check out www.genocideinterventionfund.org. --Zaorish 15:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 51 unknowns

Add here as they become available, the list looks pretty ugly as is on the main page:

Suspects Named: 1: Unknown 2: Unknown 3: Unknown 4: Unknown 5: Unknown 6: Unknown 7: Unknown 8: Unknown 9: Unknown 10: Unknown 11: Unknown 12: Unknown 13: Unknown 14: Unknown 15: Unknown 16: Unknown 17: Unknown 18: Unknown 19: Unknown 20: Unknown 21: Unknown 22: Unknown 23: Unknown 24: Unknown 25: Unknown 26: Unknown 27: Unknown 28: Unknown 29: Unknown 30: Unknown 31: Unknown 32: Unknown 33: Unknown 34: Unknown 35: Unknown 36: Unknown 37: Unknown 38: Unknown 39: Unknown 40: Unknown 41: Unknown 42: Unknown 43: Unknown 44: Unknown 45: Unknown 46: Unknown 47: Unknown 48: Unknown 49: Unknown 50: Unknown 51: Unknown

--nixie 04:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] international intervention

This paragraph is too POV as it assumes there is a "genocide" requiring intervention, which is not the case according to the UN's own conclusions. It also casts the government as "evil" and should be destroyed, while absolving the insurgents of any blame for their atrocities. The rest of the article also already discussed sanctions and courts, so this paragraph is redundant.

[edit] Death Toll

New research which seems very comprehensive carried out by Northwestern University in conjunction with the Coalition for International Justice puts the death toll at almost 400,000 (140,000 murdered by the government and 250,000 by starvation and disease with a further 500 people dying per day). I know it is a contentious issue as there are vastly different numbers floating around so could we get a consensus before an edit? --Otoolend 15:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding it, with a reference. You may want to substitute "janjaweed" for "government" though. - BanyanTree 22:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


"murdered by the government" - how many murdered by the rebels? It appears the "government" recruited the "janjaweed" to fight the rebels and the rebels ( after kicking ,"murdering", government troops ran into a force that is now kicking them. Just out of curoiusity, who are the "good" guys in this affair?

[edit] May 2005.

The Darfur conflict should be updated as of May 2005. --Numberonedad 18:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] June and July 2005

The article is missing June and July 2005. Not knowing much about the conflict, I wonder what the latest is. Is it still as bad as it was before? What's going on? MPS 19:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide or not?

In the second paragraph, it says, Note that both sides are largely black in skin tone, and the distinction between "Arab" and "non-Arab" common in western media is heavily disputed by many people, including the Sudanese government. Moreover, these labels have been criticized for sensationalizing the conflict into one of racial motivations, when in fact the causes have more to do with competition between sedentary farmers and nomadic cattle-herders who compete for scarce resources. Yet, it is unclear which side is composed of the sedentary farmers, and which, of cattle-herders. After explaining that race may not be the real motivation for this conflict, it would help if you clarified what it really is. Go into more detail. And, the fact that the next paragrapg begins, The conflict has been widely described as "ethnic cleansing", and frequently as "genocide". contradicts the previous point that the conflict, may not, in fact be racially motivated. It would be helpful if you delved more into this, and drew more of a conclusion on whether or not the "Darfur Conflict" is truly a genocide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.12.112 (talk • contribs).

Yeah it's a good point, is someone with a little more expertise able to develop that section a little more? I also intend to change the "in fact" because, it seems to be more a matter of opinion, given that there is such disagreeance as to the motivations of this violence. --Brendanfox 07:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

(P.S. it's best if people finish posts with four tildas ~, so that the post is signed and dated and we can trace things back)

The United States, under Colin Powell, has classified the events of Darfur as qualifiable for genocide using UN Article 7 definitions. However, the UN itself has not declared the Darfur conflicts as genocide because of the interests of China. Darfur has billion-dollar exports of oil into India and China, and as we all know, only one veto from the permanent security council is enough to quash a movement. -Anonymous 10:04 PM, GMT -8:00; 13 May, 2006


The reference in the 20003 jaanjaweed section to the yugoslaw wars is rather pov imho. Especially since dismemberment is mentioned in the same phrase. ofcourse there is no war let alone a war involving ethnic sentiments completely free of amputations but there is no obvious reason at all to compare with the balkan situation. Otoh a comparison with other african scenes may still lead to positice resuls. After all it a thing to counter that in assymetric situations of violence torture is more common. And teh reasons and causes may be important. However to apply african mutilations to the balkan situation on the single pretext that both are judged genocidious by the us, is undeniably pov.80.57.242.54 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The UN, as in many conflicts, is a bad source for moral certainty. The UN sold itself out on genocide when it let Stalin and Maoist China get veto powers....so right about when it started. Please read the defnitions found at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html to determine whether this qualifies. The document allows for "intent". Nickjost 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote

I was thinking is would be good to set up a Wikiqote page to keep track of quotes about the conflict. If you know of some good sources, or quotes please list them here and I'll move them across to wikiquote.--nixie 06:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but Amnesty International has some very good reports on the crisis. Many have quotes from victims. -- Singlewordedpoem 08:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New related article?

I think we need a page on the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), which I mentioned (un-linked) in my update of this page. As was pointed out in the Second Sudanese Civil War article, there is also no article on the SPLA United. Perhaps these could be merged into one article? Singlewordedpoem 08:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Someone brought this up last year, but...

I think it's definetly a crisis or genocide, but not a conflict. I was surprised, and somewhat upset, when I found this page had such a subdued name. This issue is a lot more crucial than its title makes it seem. --Singlewordedpoem 08:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The name was probably choosen for NPOV. I did a google search on the name,
    • Darfur conflict 599,000 hits
    • Darfur crisis 579,000
    • Darfur genocide 500,000
So they are all in wide use. Since noone on an official capacity is willing to call it a genocide, I think we shoudl probably stick with the name as is for now.--nixie 09:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
George W. Bush and the United States Congress, as well as Colin Powell, have all declared it genocide. That's certainly "official capacity." Plus the UN special advisor on genocide Juan Méndez regularly reports on the genocide. ivan 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But the US doesn't happen to be the world, does it? Already stated, the US does classify the conflict as a "genocide", but the UN doesn't. But it clearly is a genocide by all definitions as stated by the UN members themselves. --64.173.171.124 05:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanitarian Aid section

We should add more references here, not delete the few which people have posted. The entire reason why most users are logging into this Darfur page is because of the humanitarian aid crisis there -- 2,200,000 refugees and counting -- prior to this crisis most people in most places outside of the Sudan couldn't have found "Darfur" on a map.

So the Humanitarian Aid section of the article is a very good idea, I believe -- central to the purpose of the article, in fact -- and it needs expanding, not deleting. I happen to know that Oxfam does good work and that they are there. If others here know of additional humanitarian aid NGOs which are present in Darfur and are particularly effective I hope they'll post links to those.

Yes there are many humanitarian aid organizations; but no they are not all in Darfur, and no they are not all effective. People come to the Wikipedia Darfur page now to find out which ones are, and are.

--Kessler 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few humanitarian aid NGOs which I know are present in Darfur and are doing good work there, from press reports both at their own websites and as confirmed in the media. I hope others here will add more. I feel the point of the article for most who search for it here, as I said, will be to find out about the current humanitarian crisis there: nobody is simply planning a tourist trip to Darfur, not anytime soon.
The point also is not to list all humanitarian aid agencies and NGOs on the planet, in this article, I realize: that would be mere duplication, as I'm sure there are other Wikipedia articles which do that -- if not there ought to be. But, like I said up above here, no they are not all in Darfur, and no they are not all effective: I happen to know those I have listed myself, and can document both their current presence in Darfur and their generally-good work -- for example they don't take all the donation money for their own "administrative expenses", the way so many "charities do"...
This said, if anyone spots the listing here of some supposed "humanitarian aid" outfit which does fit into that last category, or simply isn't in Darfur, or is not really doing anything there, or is doing worse, I hope they'll bring it up here so we can discuss & delete. There are lots of freeloaders & cover-ups & bandits out there, in this sort of thing.
--Kessler 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the section again. There are literally dozens of international NGOs that could be listed, and you didn't even break down the ones you did list by country chapters, e.g. MSF Holland vs MSF UK, which is a key difference operationally. A far better way to do it would be to create internal links to relevant organizations within the article in talking about their work, and a Humanitarian management of the Darfur crisis article would be very interesting, but blind external links don't cut it. UNOCHA should have an aid coordination page describing the entire operation on their website if you feel a need to go find the relevant page and and link it. It'd be much more targeted that a list of the giant INGOs. - BanyanTree 04:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
BanyanTree, I have reverted your edits, because the consensus here is that the links are useful. If you'd like to improve how they are organised or described, or add more links then great, but removing them is the wrong way to go. --Brendanfox 06:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Kessler is a consensus? - BanyanTree 22:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I've replaced the five organizations, or so, listed with a link to the comprehensive UN list. Now do you understand why I'm against creating a list here? - BanyanTree 23:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with BanyanTree, a link to a list of humanitarian agencies is much better than this article maintaining a list of agencies, see WP:NOT.--nixie 23:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sudan Chad War

I didn't know where to put this but we should create a new page about the Sudan Chad War. I know it started in the last 24 hours or so but I wanted to create a page. I didn't know what to call it though. --NeoJustin 04:37, December 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sudanese-Chadian conflict would be an place to start it, and it could simply be moved if it turns into something with a formal name. Note that Foreign relations of Chad needs to be updated (Foreign relations of Sudan already has been), and the precipitating incident is not yet described at Adre, Chad, so this needs a lot of attention. For some reason there don't seem to be a lot of Chad experts on the wiki... - BanyanTree 06:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UN Spec. Adviser on Genocide

I'm not sure how to work this in, but the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Juan Méndez is essentially the UN's point-person on the conflict, and has issued more than one report to the UN about what's going on there. He should be included in this article somehow. ivan 06:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the...

"media is heavily disputed by many people, including the Sudanese government."

Who on earth cares what they say? I wonder whether it is standard practice on Wiki to cite the official propoganda of the third Reich in the Holocaust article?

Also the fact that Arabs in Sudan are a bit more sunburnt than Arabs in the Lebanon is far less important than some people here seem to make out.

The other main problem is how the article doesn't go into enough detail about the Islamic justifications for the various genocides of the Sudanese regime, but I don't want to spark a riot so I'll just leave it there. 81.110.202.65 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] January 2006 in the timeline of the article

I see no January in the timeline. Did really nothing at all happen in Darfur during January? DanielDemaret 12:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No March either. -Scottwiki 06:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
And no April. -Scottwiki 10:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
...therefore, I've added section stubs for the missing months. -Scottwiki 19:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democide numbers?

In May 2005 he guessed the number for Darfur Conflict to be Democide Galore >400,000

Are there any newer numbers? Is this number relevant for entry into the article?DanielDemaret 18:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] um

shouldnt this have a current event notice thingy on the top of the article saying that things may change and stuff?Blueaster 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! Fsotrain09 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British response?

'Moreover, in both of these nations, along with Britain and France, a strong lobby exists opposed to intervention in countries whose internal strife is not clearly related to the nation's own interest' ... I'm not sure that this is true of Britain, or if it is true there is an equally strong group of persons who would wish the UK or moreover, the UN to take action in Darfur.Smucks 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 million killed

There was a statement added which read, "but todays [sic] resources say over 2 million deaths have occurred." I removed it as I don't know what "today's resources" are. Perhaps if the anonymous contributor could cite his source, it could be returned. Brian Sayrs 22:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Tuesday" time reference

In the section April 2005 "Tuesday" is used as a time reference. This should be fixed. There are also other confusing time references in the article. __meco 16:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Main points of the deal"

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

The above copied to Talk:Darfur_conflict/to_do. __meco 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference section needs major cleanup

In many cases, only a number is showing in the visible text associated with the hidden URL. Joncnunn 15:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 june 06 ICC report

First here's the 10 page pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_06_06_un_darfur.pdf Second here's some edited info; Men from the following trbes seem to be the main victoms acording to witnesses and victoms, Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa. Also witnessses report perpitrators saying thing that indicated the targeted nature of the attacks such as "we will kill all the black" and "we will drive you out of this land". (This might be very important in the whole race/genocide argument).Hypnosadist 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controverisal text

Text removed by User:HKT

In a piece published in the French magazine Geostrategie (Geostrategy) titled "Why is the U.S. so Interested in Darfur?"[7] anti-War activist Sara Flounders notes that American support for intervention in the Darfur conflict has been bolstered in the U.S. by pro-Iraq War conservatives. Flounders notes that the political disparity between promoting "humanitarian intervention" in Darfur, (to which China and others object), while supporting continued military aggression in Iraq (and Iran, etc.), points towards some planned political maneuvering. Flounders suggests that U.S. promotion of human rights in Darfur is simply a red herring —part of a political campaign to distract the American public from the ongoing humanitarian crisis and war crimes in Iraq —an increasingly difficult political issue for the United States. The promoted outward campaign of concern for Darfur refugees appears, according to Flounders, designed to make U.S. foreing policy appear to be more humanitarian than it actually is. Flounders notes a report in The Jerusalem Post which noted that "Zionist"[sic] groups had organized a coalition of leftist activism, and that these were endorsed by U.S. President George W. Bush himself. Flounders suggests Israeli PAC support is based in mutual interests regarding Iraq and War on Terrorism, where Darfur is simply a convenient avenue for misdirecting public attention and coordinated humanitarian activism away from Iraq.

While I do not have this POV I know several people that do. Many people who were against the Iraq War have this POV, in both the left-wing and the Muslim sections of that movement. This I believe makes it a notable POV that needs to be in this article.Hypnosadist 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Im glad you agree, though it may be better suited under a "criticism" section. -Ste|vertigo 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't presented as the left-wing activist POV; it is presented as Flounders' POV, or, rather, as a series of things that she "notes" in her accusations of sinister motives. I wouldn't object to similar info presented in a more neutral way if it could be shown, with citations, that these ideas are popular among left-wing activists. I think a criticism section in general might be in order, though a whole section devoted to criticism of motives behind criticism of the Darfur events seems like a real spin-off from the topic. HKTTalk 23:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all its anti-war activist Flounders, second i was only presenting information that i had heard this before out of the Respect party UK and other anti-war groups though i don't have a quote it will be there. At the moment it is ok as a sourced counter POV, but it just depends how much geoploitical detail we want to get into in this article.Hypnosadist 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Flounders may be an anti-war activist, but she doesn't seem notable enough to have her accusations mentioned without sources showing that this is the popular anti-war position. At the moment, it isn't ok. Even if better sources can be found, the phrasing has to be changed for neutrality reasons, especially to reflect the undue weight policy.
  • More importantly: This doesn't provide a counter-POV, only simple criticism of motives. It dodges the UN and western (including US) POVs and launches a tangential attack on the Bush administration and Israel that is irrelevant to the conflict in Darfur. After consideration, it became clear to me that any POV that is not related to the issues involved in the Darfur conflict is totally inappropriate here and would be much more appropriate in an article about the Iraq War. Thus, even if this criticism is sourced as representative of the anti-war crowd at large, it is inappropriate for this article. Al-Bashir is a major player here, so elaboration on his POV regarding western imperialism (etc.) would be acceptable with respect to criticism of western involvement. I hope that this would be an acceptable resolution regarding adding criticism of the West's participation in Darfur. HKTTalk 07:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi HKT, i'll have a look to find something from the anti-war movement as this is a common view i've heard. Al-Bashir quote is of more import you are right, and as you say fleshed out a bit and the activist could be used to add evidence of his position. Should we havea link to a group she claims is running a campain for US involvement in Darfur if we can find it?Hypnosadist 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This commentators POV should be one sentence, not two paragraphs. The article is about the conflict, and its developments. It's just not appropriate to devote so much space in the article to one commentators opinion, especially an opinion relating more to Iraq than Darfur. Brendanfox 13:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. And if this POV (or a similar one) is already enunciated by Al-Bashir, Flounders need not appear at all. HKTTalk 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
So what has been decided here? It seems to me that this text should be reduced to a few sentences, if not outright removed. It seems especially surreal to dissect US involvement in a conflict, particularly given actual involvement has been largely nil. --Bletch 10:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you points guys, i think flounders is important to show that this belief extends to people in the west. Also China's involvement needs to be added and balanced against the potential involvement of America.Hypnosadist 11:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is little more than an opinion piece, and not just that, but an opinion piece on something that simply has not happened. There have been just as many opinion pieces and condemnations toward the US for not getting involved; if anything those should get greater focus because those reflect actual circumstances. --Bletch 00:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I came on the talk to discuss my changes, and see that there was already a controversy brewing. I am trying to think of ways to bring the length of this article down to the recommended 32 kb (20 minutes reading time) from the 75kb it is at now. This entire article is heavily skewed towards Westerners shuffling pieces of paper and issuing proclamations and is shamefully lacking in information about the actual conflict as experienced in Sudan. But that "controversy" section took the prize for tangential soapboxing. I noted in my edit summary that the section deserves a paragraph, max, though it was so badly organized I doubt that there's a cohesive idea on which to base a paragraph. I am also thinking of ways to break out subpages or use the proverbial chainsaw. I'm getting a feeling that an international response to the Darfur conflict would be useful. Comments are welcome. - BT 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BanyanTree (talk • contribs).
Well done BT; your changes are very much an improvement. The previous version seemed more preoccupied with the speculative impact on US politics than the actual conflict. It probably would be worthwhile to create your proposed article idea to absorb this sort of info though. --Bletch 19:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have broken out content to International response to the Darfur conflict and Bibliography of the Darfur conflict and created a navigational template {{Darfur conflict}}. The page is now under the recommended maximum. I picked some of the key events on the ground that were in the timeline to keep here, but there's still quite a bit of cleanup to be done both here and on the international respone page to make the text coherent. - BT 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I smell an edit war...

The Reverter that has removed my edit would like to please get this session started by telling me your reason *sigh* this is going to be a long night. Kara Umi 20:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your good faith, I reverted because you deleted factual and usful information about the origin of this conflict in a geo-political/historical sense. This is in part the latest version of a very old civil war, in which all of the following play a part; Race, Religion, Land, Water, Oil and plane old Money. Above all the paragraph provided usful links to different groups involved with conflict and local history so provided more context to this issue for the reader.PS my name is here--->Hypnosadist 21:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying kindley Hypnosadist, your reply is refreshing in a site that is filled with arrogent and mind numbing stubborn people. The "Old Civil War" you are refferring to never occurred I think you mean "Tention" and Petty conflict between herdsmen. However that alone isent enough to translate Tention into war and connecting todays "Actuall State Of War" with yesterdays Grudges is merly speculation no matter how viable or deeming it may sound. The Conflict between the Goverment and the Insurgent forces based in Darfur stems from nothing more then a "Sepratist" movement by the rebels. What I have a problem with howevere is calling the Chadian born Janjaweed "Arabs" when they are clearly not, something thats been spreading in the media for a while now sadly. No they are Black African's Supported by the Black Sudanese goverment and armed by the goverment as a "Counter Insurgency" force. Wether the goverment ordered them to rape and burn whole villages is left as only speculation as there is yet no evidence nor proof or even viable claim to that connection. The Janjaweed seem to be pretty independent of the goverment and act on there own occord. Kara Umi (To lazy to log in :p)

Regarding your last point, nope. There is zero doubt that the government has supported and directed the janjawiid. This article is pretty bad at describing the conditions leading up to the outbreak of open rebellion but, if you're interested, check out Darfur: A Short History of a Long War for a relatively quick read of the past 25 years or so that is damning for the government. Or practically any other analysis done by third-parties for that matter. The only group consistently denying government involvement is the government. - BT 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Library of congress

"The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> in their collection of Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur. They wish to

  1. archive the page at regular intervals, and
  2. publish it on their publicly accessible web site." from http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-July/008458.html 4.250.198.27 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the God-damned, non academic Wikipedia"

This text moved from top of page and attributed under new section. - BT 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As typical of the God-damned, non academic Wikipedia, this site is full of subtle but damning errors of FACT, exacerbated by biases. For example, George Bush, Jr.'s White House HAS NOT termed the terror in Darfur as "Genocide," as it would behoove him to DO something. The UN has "refused" to call it genocide PRECISELY because the world powers of note---The UNITED STATES in particular, and Britain, France, Russian, and China---do NOT want to commit troops and or resources to stop Genocide. And this is because, as in China's case, the nation states manouevre for advantage in obtaining rights to resources, and in the case of the United States, France, and Britain, because said powers do NOT want to commit their troops to anything but that which will gain their nations (a) a quick and prestige-enhancing victory and (b) strategic/economic gain. It is the usual (Conservative) bias and sloppy, slovenly, and slack "scholarship" that reflect the anti-intellectual biases of wiki as a whole that infects this and so many other entries therein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.21.44 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2006.

Congress[8], State[9], Bush (2004)[10], [11], [12] and then again (2006)[13]. Idiot. Though it's certainly true not enough has been done since then (see, for example, DarfurScores.org. ivan 18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Since this seemed like a useful reference to have, I've added a list: Declarations of genocide in Darfur. ivan 14:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
66.251.21.44: Got a citation for your offensive and untrue characterization of Wikipedia in this section heading? Or is it -- and everything else you wrote here -- based on your "original research". Nothing you wrote is of any value: you comment anonymously, you offend gratuitously, and you cite no sources for your points. Catawba 01:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of the conflict

It seems to me that the causes of the conflict are not fully explained in a structured way in the current article. The opening paragraph in the section "Historical and population background" is a good beginning - but then the next paragraph goes on with just history.

I would like to propose a new first section in the article, "Introduction - causes of the conflict". In this section the causes of the conflict will shortly be described, maybe in a list form. Causes should include e.g. desertification (forced the Arab nomadic side to stay longer in the southern farmer side African part of Darfur), the peace negotiations in southern Sudan (made the rebel groups in Darfur see their opportunity), the similar conditions for other parts of Sudan (which make the Sudanese government willing to make an example of Darfur - 'if someone else in our country tries to make rebellions you see what happen'), slave trade in 19th/20th century (contributes to the tense relations between nomads and farmers).

Mårten Berglund 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The presence of oil has been mentioned as the 'real' reason for the conflict and esp. for the US interest in an area which it would bnot usually care about. Even if this theory has no substance, I wd like to see it discussed.
Johnbibby 11:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I came to the talk page after trying to extract the main causes of the conflict from the article, a task that is extremely frustrating due to the complete lack of a proper "executive summary" on the conflict that includes concise discussion of near and longer term causes and current maintaining factors, like lack of effective international action.
Instead, the article is full of information of only tangential importance to readers like me who are interested in obtaining a fundamental grasp of the conflict (that is, it is about as accessible as a difficult classical history text, the kind that only historians seem to enjoy). While realizing that oversimplification is a folly, the article makes zero attempt at simplifying in so far as it facillitates understanding. I'm likewise amazed that the article is on the "good" article list for these reasons. Most people coming to the article probably won't want to spent thirty minutes digesting and analyzing all the data here, although it is, of course, commendable that all these facts have been brought together by wikipedians. Now make them accessible, please! 4.159.11.167 10:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There have enough complaints about this that I went ahead and split History of Darfur out of Darfur and merged content from here to both of those articles. The background section should be much more readable now. I will try to limit my writing on the background of the conflict to those articles, though people are of course welcome to summarize any needed points here. - BT 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I have also come here looking for more detail on the nature of the conflict, particularly who threw the first stone... However I understand that there maybe no clear evil in as far as the conflict maybe rooted in a complex history and economic factors. Its a good article in any case.

88.11.51.64 08:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good article?

This text moved from top of page under GA template and attributed under new section. The "section 38" is referring to #Causes of the conflict. - BT 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I question this. See section 38 below. The article is also too long, and is too detailed about the different ethnic groups in the history-section; this information belongs rather to the Darfur article. Mårten Berglund 13:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama

Could somebody here who is following the Darfur situation closer than me please add something NPOV [citation needed] to the Africa section of Barack Obama about the last days of his recently completed Africa trip? Google search on obama+darfur yields lots of related references. Thanks in advance. --HailFire 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I also question the "good article" status, There is a huge gap in the background section to the current conflict. This period had prior attacks, village burnings, etc. in 1998 per [Human Rights Watch] http://hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0504/4.htm Thanos, Noblesseoblige.org

The Masalit, Fur, and other sedentary African farmers in Darfur have a history of clashes over land with pastoralists from Arab tribes, primarily the camel- and cattle-herding Beni Hussein from the Kabkabiya area of North Darfur and the Beni Halba of South Darfur. Until the 1970s, these tensions were kept under control by traditional conflict resolution mechanisms underpinned by laws inherited from the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium (1898-1956). While clashes over resources took place, they were usually resolved through negotiations between community leaders.4 It is not the case, as the Sudanese government maintains, that the current violence is merely a prolongation of the predominantly economic tribal conflicts that have always existed in the region. In recent decades, a combination of extended periods of drought; competition for dwindling resources; the lack of good governance and democracy; and easy availability of guns have made local clashes increasingly bloody and politicized. 5 A wide-reaching 1994 administrative reorganization by the government of President Omar El Bashir in Darfur gave members of Arab ethnic groups new positions of power, which the Masalit, like their Fur and Zaghawa neighbors, saw as an attempt to undermine their traditional leadership role and the power of their communities in their homeland.6 Communal hostilities broke out in West Darfur among other places in 1998 and 1999 when Arab nomads began moving south with their flocks earlier than usual.7 During the 1998 clashes, more than sixty Masalit villages were burned, one Arab village was burned, approximately sixty-nine Masalit and eleven Arabs were killed, and more than 5,000 Masalit were displaced, most fleeing either into Geneina town or to Chad. Despite an agreement for compensation for both sides negotiated by local tribal leaders,8 clashes resumed in 1999 when nomadic herdsmen again moved south earlier than usual. These 1999 clashes were even bloodier, with more than 125 Masalit villages partially or totally burned or evacuated and many hundred people killed, including a number of Arab tribal chiefs. The government brought in military forces in an attempt to quell the violence and appointed a military man responsible for security overall, with the power to overrule even the West Darfur state governor. A reconciliation conference held in 1999 agreed on compensation for Masalit and Arab losses.9 Many Masalit intellectuals and notables were arrested, imprisoned, and tortured in the towns as government-supported Arab militias began to attack Masalit villages; a number of Arab chiefs and civilians were also killed in these clashes. The barometer of violence crept steadily upward.

[edit] Marginal view at top of page

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Help

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

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

[edit] Reports of slavery

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

I think you are right. This source mentions black Muslims from Darfur being recruited to help the genocide in southern Sudan, but that really doesn't tie in sufficiently to this article. I obviously didn't do my research well enough. If anyone wants to see what we're talking about, the removed content is here. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I should probably merge my content to Slavery in Sudan and possibly Second Sudanese Civil War somehow. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about this?

The Sudanese government has signed a peace deal with the eastern rebels. [14]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Télapó (talk • contribs) on 15 October 2006.

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


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

[edit] Incorrect Image

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

[edit] Sudanese Support for the Janjaweed

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

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

[edit] Links to African Union Mission in Sudan?

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

I agree with ivan.Hypnosadist 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, {{Infobox Military Conflict}} poses some technical limitations. This did remind me to update the AMIS entry upto 2006. El_C 13:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's possible to use the "notes" parameter to the {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template. Mårten Berglund 15:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Nomination?

Anybody considered it?

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

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

24.240.71.213 03:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sudan Divestment?

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not going to type out a whole page, but here's some context:
But another dimension, little noted at the time, was Gaddafi's racism. Part of his hostility to Tombalbaye's regime was due to the fact that the Chadian president was a black African and a Christian and that in his early "revolutionary" days Gaddafi was not only a strident Pan-Arabist but an Arab cultural supremacist as well.
[skip extended quote from another source backing up the supremacy viewpoint]
The protestations of the Chadian ambassador in Tripoli, Beshir Sow (himself a Muslim), that there was no persecution of Muslims in his country were of no avail. So from the beginning, Gaddafi's support for the Chadian rebellion acquired a very particular racial tinge where the zurqa were suspected of siding with the "imperialists", while the "Arabs" (a concept even more elusive in Chad than in the Sudan) became the very incarnation of "revolutionary" purity. (Prunier, p. 44)
I trust that this is enough to prove that the citation was used correctly and the source is not being misrepresented. I will remove the POV tag, which is a very general template if you wished to challenge a specific citation. - BanyanTree 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African Union and the UN

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

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