Talk:Juba Nuer Massacre

Merge proposal

I propose merging Nuer massacre into Juba Nuer Massacre. JustBeCool (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, it's about the same topic. Applodion (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: these are the same event although it would have been easier to merge things the other way around but I will leave the logistic to the nominator to be careful to weed out what is opinion written as fact (which can be fixed) and what is just totally fabricated. ~~but this article should be merged to the Nuer massacre not the other way around. See the discussion below~~ FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the problems with the other article. I think the merge should be as proposed FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma this is completely unfair. The other has improved a lot. Just take some to review it again. Just compare them again. Take a look at related articles like Rwandan genocide, then come back to Nuer massacre.

I still think and the other editor here that the merging should the other way not as proposed. Gatwech Gai (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the related events described the topic plainly and used all kinds of sources whether self published or not. Check Namibia genocide as an example Herero and Nama genocide.

Why would it be a problem when it come to Nuer massacre?

The terrible things that happened to Nuer people should not be hidden from the world.

Juba Nuer Massacre has only four sections each with one paragraph. Its almost nothing compared to what the Nuer massacre covered, what actually happened and how it happened.

I just think using POV and adding Neutrality template to the Nuer massacre, labelled it as a "problem" is some kind of tactic to get rid of it. Something don't add up at all.@FuzzyMagma Gatwech Gai (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot just describe an event because you feel like it or using primary sources. I am starting to get frustrated with this conversation.

You either need to familiarise yourself with the plenty of policies that I have linked when interacting with your or write about something else until you understand how this place work, with time. But for now, I think you just do not want to listen and accused everyone who is pointing to the problems with the way you operate, as "working for the genocidal government of South Sudan?"

You have already have been warned three times for personal attacks and multitude of other offenses, and there is no fourth. So come down and start to listen. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is what @JustBeCool wrote when he proposed the merge "Juba Nuer Massacre" article is older and the "Nuer massacare" should have been merged into it in the first place............this book written by a survivor calls it the 'Juba Massacre' [2] which is also closer to 'Juba Nuer Massacre'. Additionally, I would favor 'Juba Nuer Massacre' because there would have been quite a few massacres of Nuers and potentially more as there is still low level fighting and so some kind of specifying would help rather than a generic 'Nuer massacre"

Now tell me this (this book written by a survivor calls it the 'Juba Massacre' [2] which is also closer to 'Juba Nuer Massacre) is not a Primary source. @FuzzyMagma

And also there are more than 30 sources referenced in the Nuer massacre article and majority of these sources are Secondary source.

Why is one primary source favored than the other? Gatwech Gai (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is debating its a massacre, I am concern by the way you editorialise. That is why I want the merger to be to the article that is better written with more encyclopaedic language so to go through what you have written and weed out these problems.

this is a very serious topic and need to be written to avoid stilling the facts. From the way you argue, I have no faith that you are capable of doing that especially after the Rol Naath article and your continuous personal attacks FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:FIXTHEPROBLEM, its clear that "Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can" ..... "Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required".

Wikepdia is not one man's work. I don't need you to have faith in me, I would rather need you to help improve the article like any Wikipedian would. There is reason why editors on Wikipedia are called Wikipedian. Anyone can help improve the article as stated here Help:Editing.

If we can just help improving articles that don't seem to be great in our eyes as Wikipedia required us to, rather than just trying to get rid of the imperfect content outright, Wikipedia would be a better place for all. Gatwech Gai (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, identical topic :Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustBeCool though I agree with your proposal, the merging should be the other way around, Juba Nuer massacre into Nuer Massacre. Gatwech Gai (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the reasoning for merging the other way around? The "Juba Nuer Massacre" article is older and the "Nuer massacare" should have been merged into it in the first place. Going by the sources, there is no one name I could find, but this opinion piece refers to it as the 'Juba Nuer Massacre' [1] and this book written by a survivor calls it the 'Juba Massacre' [2] which is also closer to 'Juba Nuer Massacre'. Additionally, I would favor 'Juba Nuer Massacre' because there would have been quite a few massacres of Nuers and potentially more as there is still low level fighting and so some kind of specifying would help rather than a generic 'Nuer massacre'. JustBeCool (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and anyone here would tell you that "Juba Nuer Massacre" is older than "Nuer Massacre" but does that make it more important and accurate than the new article?

According to the Wikipedia article titles, the title indicates what the article is about and "Nuer massacre" embody what the article is about, though it may sounds generic to some. Juba is the location where the massacre happened, its not what the article is about. The article is about the Nuer innocent civilian that were mercilessly and senselessly killed.

Another reasoning would be the reliability, thoroughness, accurateness and the clear indication of what happened, how it happened during that period of time and which article can give you all that as a reader, last time I checked its "Nuer Massacre". Favoring "Juba Nuer Massacre" article when it only give you half of what the "Nuer Massacre" article clearly articulate is not only absurd, but a clear denial of what the event was about to the knowledge seekers. Nuer people every where in the world commemorate this event on December 15 annually as "Nuer genocide" not "Juba Nuer massacre". The article was originally published under the "Nuer genocide" but moved to "Nuer massacre".

Now to let you know, there is never been a massacre of such scale against the Nuer people in the history of their existence. I was born and raised in South Sudan, went through all kind of struggles, whether Sudanese civil war before the independence or South Sudanese civil war after the independence.

If merging should happen which we all support, it should be "Juba Nuer Massacre" into "Nuer Massacre" simple as that. Gatwech Gai (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see your argument, having Juba preceding it trivialises it Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have some source to back up your preferred term? but the only ones I found that I mentioned above support Juba Nuer Massacre. In any case, since there is agreement to merge then the merge can happen and the title change discussion can happen separately on a new discussion. JustBeCool (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatwech Gai: for above comment Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Bloody Nile, South Sudan: Untold story, Nuer Nation. These books plainly described the incident as it happened way better than your source especially the Bloody Nile. If you had read Nuer massacre article, you would have noticed these sources in the references section.

Please take sometime to compare both articles side by side, you will not only notice that the article that you are favoring (Juba Nuer Massacre) has way shorter length 15k compared to Nuer massacre with 34k length, you will also notice that Nuer massacre is way deeper into the topic in question than Juba Nuer Massacre which is way shallow and severely lack comprehensive knowledge about the topic.

Please merge Juba Nuer massacre into Nuer Massacre. Nuer Massacre has to be the destination page as it cover the topic comprehensively. The other editors in here can back that up as well. Gatwech Gai (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively support that Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Alexanderkowal Gatwech Gai (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexanderkowal most of these sources are self published and the other article has a huge POV problem that yet to be resolved FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, Juba Nuer massacre has been successfully merged into Nuer massacre. Thank you. Gatwech Gai (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has the content been merged into the article? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, almost everything were already covered by the destination article. I have just added some of the few that are not. Gatwech Gai (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, its me again. the merging that i did yesterday (Juba Nuer Massacre into Nuer massacre) has been reverted because the merging was deemed "not constructive".

If anyone here can merge it better, please do so by merging Juba Nuer Massacre into Nuer massacre. Thanks. Gatwech Gai (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]