Jump to content

Talk:South Sudanese Civil War

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

Missing leg

[edit]

In the article, section 2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attempt#Background, there is the following blockquote:

The first leg for any government is a disciplined military. We have problems with the way our military functions today. That's a broken leg. We have civil society, right now it is very weak. The third leg is delivery of services. It is hard to deliver security...The fourth leg is political unity. We had political unity in the days leading up to the referendum [which led to independence]. Since the referendum, we have been having difficulties uniting our ranks. So right now the animal is standing on four crooked legs. If we do not fix these legs, the future is going to be very, very difficult.

Where is the second leg? I'm tempted to put a [sic] notice in there. — Jeremy 05:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil society I guess. A broken leg (military), a very weak leg (civil society), a hard to deliver leg (security) and a having difficulties leg (unity). Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title?

[edit]

The BBC says it is not clear if it was a coup attempt but that is what the government is alleging. [1] JustBeCool (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is now a military conflict and should be named as such--78.0.115.43 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What should the title be then? Any suggestions? There is already a South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present) which is about the various rebellions and ethnic conflicts. JustBeCool (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge proposal--78.0.115.43 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is now too long to feasibly merge into another, so should continue as an expansion, but perhaps needs additional detailing in South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we should wait a bit since media started talking that it's on a verge of civil war...--78.0.115.43 (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had my doubts in the beginning too, instead calling it a mutiny. But no one else did and all the sources then said coup. It could be a process and a long-drawn out coup, if you must.
But I also agree, its too seperate to be merged (and the ethnic element is dubious, this is certainly very political). We could move the title. But as the IP says maybe we shuld wait a bit. No harm really.
Otherwise am open to suggestions, but would insist on discussion before move warringLihaas (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I originally meant was that it is not certain if it was a "coup" as the title said. It is an alleged coup. JustBeCool (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Title doesnt say alleged, it says attemt. Which considering it failed then is an attempt(Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
Lol. I guess I am really not being clear. My concern is that this article's title states "coup" as if it was definitely a coup. Only the government is alleging that it was a coup. South Sudan expert Douglas H Johnson is not even sure if he could have called it a "concerted mutiny". Either way, this article has gone beyond the initial (alleged) coup and includes current fighting in Bor that no one describes as a coup so the article title would have to change anyway. JustBeCool (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is though a "consequence" of the "coup" as a precipitating incident. Still though, I'm not seeing suggestiong for a new name so we have nothing to discuss there. Mutiny and coup seem to be off (though do you have a soruce for Johnson's quote?), should we go with 2013 South Sudan political crisis? (the linkbelow calls it thta)(Lihaas (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
This is the source for the Johnson quote, [2]. Calling it 2013 South Sudan political crisis seems fine and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is also giving it the safe name of "South Sudan Crisis" [3] JustBeCool (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ill add the link stuff tomorrow (and more to add)
 Done and
Resolved
Lihaas (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is a military conflict--93.137.112.74 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you propose? "Battle of ..."?Lihaas (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to remove the word "political"--93.137.112.74 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Largely ethnic faction"

[edit]

At best this phrase is meaningless; at worst offensive! How about "fighting broke out in Juba, including heavy artillery fire". Physchim62 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is dodgy (though hardly offensive), but the media are labeling it in ethnic terms, broadly. However, I have read (and as the main contributor, Ive been doing a LOT of reading on this (even looking for MORE)) Kiir is opposed by soem DInka like Garang's wife. Hes really coming out as power mad.
This mjight be synthesis but its odd that after teh factionalism from teh cabinet reshuffle (could be a prempted counter-coup in solidfying hsi hold), he dint go the UNGA General Debate for teh first time since independence..(Lihaas (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Good orientation on present crisis

[edit]

https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/nine-questions-about-south-sudan-crisis-guide-confused-observers --Soman (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, and pretty much ensures my analysis that it is not ethnic.
Resolved
(Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

SPLA

[edit]

User:Lihaas has reverted back the link to Armed Forces of South Sudan. In reality, there is no entity called "AFSS" or something similar. The Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) is the armed forces of the Republic of South Sudan, and is the appropriate link to be used. --Soman (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BRD means consensus seeking. You have a real problem seeing consensus dont you? Instead you come here to accuse people and yet there i sno consensus. Consensus does not mean inserting your view and thaen enforcing it while threatening others. Sorry there is no consensus yet on this.
As a compromise however, we can keep that link with the context that is the national armed forces as it is in any country despite having official names in whatever direction.(Lihaas (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
The notion of posting a message on talk page, opening a discussion is exact the way to search consensus. Moreover, in my last edit, i changed the opening sentence to "Sudan People's Liberation Army (the armed forces of South Sudan)". I think it's preferable to use the term SPLA, as it is the common naming in South Sudan (the term 'SPLA' is arguably more common that just 'the army' in common parlance, result of the fact that the SPLA is still viewed as an armed faction amongst others). If the term "armed forces of South Sudan" appears in the text, it should not have capital letters (which would indicate an abbreviation). Lastly, I can't see how I would have threatened anyone in this process. --Soman (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you started it in an accusatory manner. All armies have official names (see China/North Korea).
Further in the context of this event, the context of a SPLIT in the state army is more important than that of an organization.
Anyhoo, I can agree to not using capital if that's accommodative and solving this?/(Lihaas (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
I'd say that there is a distinct difference between say, the naming on the Malian army in int'l press and the naming of SPLA in the same media. SPLA is an entity that transcends from the 2nd Sudanese civil war to independence, and albeit (in theory) being the republican armed forces this distinction isn't always very clear. The article Armed Forces of South Sudan was created on the basis of a crystaball reading of the new constitution, but the realities on the ground is that the SPLA never really reformed. Notably the South Sudanese government has a post called 'Minister of SPLA Affairs'. --Soman (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with your reading (and that is the issue here).
But I would this same instane is the cause of the conflict, so the context of it being with the national army it where the relevacne lies. It is a fight within the party...although after the coup title changed recently perhaps the army element is not as important. (note i also changed teh section title about the coup)Lihaas (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not understanding the comment. At present 'SPLA' is mentioned thrice in the article body, and since the SPLA is the major actor here it makes sense to mention it in the lede. --Soman (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just went and removed the silly tidbit in brackets then. TIll consensus is formed. So we can discus here and not forget about this just because 1 version is on the page. After all is certain replies arenot forthcoming here then consensus can be assumed as having been tried and no opposition
But we could very well change the article wording to reflect that (which was originally the case, so its cyclical to use this argument)Lihaas (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UN peacekeeper deaths

[edit]

I didn't see any mention of these deaths - but the article seems a bit unorganized still. Is the town of Bor mentioned?[4] Rmhermen (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bor is mentioned, the deaths of teh UN were mentioned but the nationalisited wered added only now(Lihaas (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Reading the latest news on this article around the news media, it seems blatantly obvious that the media have no editorial originality on-the-ground but are suddenly parroting the collation of sources on this artlice. (including the money-laden horse shit that is al Jazeera). Be aware that this is being relayed across the world. It had almost 15k hits yesterday and the day before that almost 20k.(Lihaas (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Srebrenica massacre see also

[edit]

I've just re-removed this as the article does not include any references to support a comparison to the massive scandal of the Srebrenica massacre with the recent events in South Sudan. UN safe havens and compounds have been attacked and captured on other occasions, and a comparison to Srebrenica should not be made lightly given the scale and seriousness of what happened there. If reliable sources are discussing such a comparison the article should explain this (did the UN guards stand by and allow the massacre of thousands of people in South Sudan to happen as was the case at Srebrenica? - nothing in the article at present indicates that anything like this occurred), and not just provide a vague link. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Srebrenica link is inappropriate, and leads to false conclusions, and we have no info that states that UN forces were inactive. If a comparison between the Srebrenica and Akobo massacres would be discussed in reliable third-party sources in the future, then a reference to it could be re-added. --Soman (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the massacre that is at play, its the instance of the violation of the UN compound (there was not direct link there). Perhaps we can link to that section aS THE comparision here is the cviolation of the supposed neutral UN compounds amidst armed conflict. Mind you it did mention the comparision reason and wasnt a blnaket link.
As an aside, thanks for coming to talk...I was coming here too. (after seeing it just now)(Lihaas (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
A fair point as it relates specifically to the UN compound, but for now I would also advise we hold off on using this as a "see also" link. Overall, the details of the violence remain surprisingly foggy, and at the moment it is difficult to determine who is actually doing what. UN compounds have clearly been violated, but it's still not clear just exactly who's fighting who at the moment. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States as a belligerent?

[edit]

I see that the United States is listed as a side in the conflict. According to this CNN article, the soldiers were only aiding in the evacuation of American citizens from the embassy. Is the US fighting or just involved in the evacuation? -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the citation given does not support the assertion that the U.S. Air Force is a belligerent. (It says only that U.S. military aircraft were hit by gunfire.) Thus, I have removed the U.S. Air Force from the infobox.108.184.149.45 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a better idea to discuss as per the OP.
As for the argument, the military was drawn into the conflict by thte firing...so they seem a aprt of it. But im okey with just putting it in the article instead o f the box.(Lihaas (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
The New York Times story on the successful evacuation of the US personnel today makes it clear that the US isn't engaged in the fighting: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/world/africa/americans-evacuated-from-south-sudan.html?hp As such, I've just removed the US from the infobox: the failed evacuation is covered in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added it back, but its been removed again.Lihaas (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internal conflict?

[edit]

I can see this as part of the inter-tibal warring, but it is much larger, so Im a little weary of calling it a part. Any other thoughts?(Lihaas (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

I don't get it, you just said that it is a part of the tribal warfare in South Sudan, but at the same time you're skeptic about acknowledging it as such, what exaxtly are you trying to say? Charles Essie (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Charles. And also am of the opinion that this is a conflict at this point, not a political crisis. You got people massacring each other in the streets, not holding political debates. EkoGraf (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is a conflict (not just a political crisis) and is part of the wider scope of the internal conflict SS has been dealing with for years. Coinmanj (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Lihaas, first, you removed the additional source I provided that confirms all three helicopters were hit by gunfire and the CNN source that was already in the article also counts three helicopters, not the two you claim. Read the sources before reverting please and refrain from accusations like blind reverts. Second, your source for the 66 dead is ok, but its out-of-date. Its only for the first day of fighting. The 500 figure is from a couple of days ago, thus more up-to-date. And according to Wikipedia policy, more up-to-date info supercedes older information. You don't see us puting in the casualties section of WW2 the number of dead being between day 1 of the war and the last day of the war. Also, your comments about the UN show a bit of a personal POV about them as a source. Wikipedia consideres the UN a reliable and authoritative source. So please, personal feelings aside. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got one more source for you [5] that confirms the figure of 500 dead, and its the South Sudan authorities this time (which were in essence the ones who reported the initial 66 figure thus they updated). Now you have both the UN and the South Sudan government saying the same number. Hope that's enough confirmation. I'm going to add the other source as well. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kept that in. But you did blind revert as you undid the referencing for youtr version of it. That is inconsistent ref work and you had no reason given for that change. Hence a BLIND REVERT.
We need same sources. UN is not god, they do not have the on the grounds capacity that the local government does. Hence its their version. My feelingds do not matter. The fact is it was by the UN so the cavat needs to say the UN claimed it. Its POV to think theyre absolutely right. Who said 500 dead? In that case that needs mention.
So you say the govt of South Sudan doesn't have a partisan side in this conflict? That's blatant POV. Of course theyre partisan here.
Further if you are going to change the infobox then change the article to reflect that number. There is no mention in the article. Both the box and lead are supposed to represent the articleLihaas (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not listening. I added a new source stated BY A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who also says 500. So we now have both the UN and a government minister saying 500. Thats double confirmation from two credible sources. And you removed it altogether. So please STOP reinserting the 66 number because IT IS OUT-OF-DATE. Also the CNN source says THREE helicopters not two, and I added even one more source saying THREE helicopters not two. And you removed the new source I added and ignoring what the cited CNN source says again reverted back to two helicopters and not three. So please stop removing sourced info (500 dead per UN and a government minister), stop removing sources (sources for the UN and government figure), stop reverting to old info (66 dead from 1st day per a government official), stop reverting to info that is not according to cited sources (2 helos vs 3 helos). EkoGraf (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes in the article to reflect the infobox as you requested. Citing we got both a government official AND the UN quoting their sources saying 500 have died. So please stop inserting 66 in the infobox. We are waaaay past that. EkoGraf (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added up to four different sources now for the 500 figure. The UN, a government official, a Juba hospital and a BBC report saying the 500 number has become official. EkoGraf (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your BOLD changed were reverted, hence you discuss and get consensus FIRST. Consensus is NOT what you determine as an update by you and you alone. You do not own articles on African conflcits. So until you get a consensus on your version, it is not neutral.
You can cite 400 sources saying the same thing but if it is syndicated and citing the same person then its essentially one source. According to the prose in the article the UN says the fihugre is LIKELY that high, and other humanitarian workers say it is LIKELY higher. There is then no source affirming the number of 1000 (that's not even including the verifiability of the UN as god). It is better to err on the side of caution then sensationalise. youre own edit says LIKELY. Your own claim for 1000 says "though there are no firm numbers available", even this article cites it as merely LIKELY. So don't distort this till you have firm numbers.
Further, it is blatantly ob vious that in a conflict involving the government they are partisan. Theyvec alled for foreign intervention as reflected here. the higher the count the more likely they are to see it as dangerous. That is not neutral.Lihaas (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem? You got four DIFFERENT ENTITIES/PERSONS saying the 500 figure. One the UN, two the government official, three a Juba hospital, four the BBC. The problem here is not consensus, the problem is your obvious dislike of the UN as a source (which I don't understand), and your constant removal of properly sourced information, reinserting old information, and writing something that is not even in the source, all of which can be considered POV-pushing. You constantly remove information without providing proof (which Wikipedia requires from you) why we shouldn't trust the sources. Wikipedia's rules are clear on this. And enough with the 66 already, the one who said 66 was a military hospital official, in essence a government official, than later we had another government official saying most of those killed in the updated figures are combatants. Newer info supercedes older. EkoGraf (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that in most conflicts, especially African ones, there are never FIRM numbers of dead, only estimates, and this has been noted in the infobox that they are just that, estimates. In any case, for the sake of a partial compromise I removed the unofficial claim by that aid worker that tens of thousands have died and the UN human rights coordinators report (although I am highly hesitant over removing the 1,000 figure). But than you will have to stop inserting the old 66 figure. EkoGraf (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EkoGraf who offered a compromise solution.Hanibal911 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is YOUR problem. You had been told to discuss, you had NO consensus, you insist on BLINDLY warring to your version without getting any consensus.
Then I ALREADY removed the 66 figure you were insistent on. I maintained the 500 figure you insisted on. I then showed that the 1000 figure is unexplained in YOUR OWNn source. Yet the inexplicable change and accusation came here saying I inssitend on keep ing it in
The problem has bugger all to do with my personal dislikes which as you can see I clearly maintained the figure YOU wanted. And even if I did have an issue with a source, as is my right, it is still necessary to discuss and gain consensus whether you agree or disagree with me personally, which you have not done. Please show where I reinsert old information as you claim? (I have REMOVED the 66 figure; and, for the record, this is th version before your edit. Now please show where I restored or had the 66 figure you maintained? Conversely, your BLIND edit in a fit of rage without reasom goes in and adds that in. THAT is POV-pushing, vandalism (clearly asyou accuse me of doing something that you demanded in despite reason shown here)
As said whether you are hesitant or not I have shown it is untue and I have removed the 66 figure as shown above. As you say WP has soucing rules and if you know African conflicts have unclear figures then we can not report on one side alone. Clearly you are blind reverting without even seeing what I have done. Instead your threats to have your view here contrary to discussion are not condusive to generating consensus. And this is not the first time you war without consensus or mention on the talk page. You do that, and you will be reported/BOOMERANGed!
As for, Hanibal1911, please see the link I provided just here, where I removed the 66 figure in order to compromise, AND I showed here on talk that 1000 is written in his source itself as unsubstantiated. AND I maintained the 500 figure alone.Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the, 66 figure was in parantheses. Ah! Get it, but it was removed in the range. Anyways, left it now with added caveat of having happened n the FIRST mutiny on day 1. Thus to reflect the article that differentiates in the prose section the main mutiny from the contined fighting.
It is differentiated here and not citing it as a number overall
Maybe your accusatory manner would have conditioned better discussion as we did come to agreement (and apparently separately at that). Kudos all around, almost?Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current version is mostly fine. Still think we should take out the foreign casualties as UNDUE. At most UNMISS, as they are officially there with international sanction.
this is context. Maybe a note to the bottm or something?
Also the mostly combatants is somewhat dibuous as there are lots of reports of targeting killings. And as you say we can never be quite so sure when its ongoing here. Just leave the base figure in the infobox and leave ALLl caveat to the article?Lihaas (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will remove the mostly combatants phrase because I now think that's also out-of-date because we at this point have two different sources confirming the death toll has passed 1,000. So, I will remove the mostly combatants wording, but will replace the 500 with the 1,000 figure. The two different sources are the head of UNMISS and the UN humanitarian coordinator. Besides, now it properly fits with the wording in the infobox where we have in brackets saying according to the UN which corresponds now to both the dead, injured and displaced. EkoGraf (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

Someone should edit the article, because it reads like a mess.

Especially the paragraphs under Renewed Fighting. The battle for Bor, the attack on the UN base in Akobo and the situation in Juba are all mashed together. Same with the deployment of ugandan soldiers, the wounded US soldiers and now the loss of Bantiu.

I understand that the situation is changing daily and we got new developments all the time, but no need to just dump it all together. Its just a bad case of Recentism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.107.8 (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here and no native english speaker, thats why I dont want to just edit the article myself, but much of the casualty figures (who were probably outdated just hours later) and statements in the heat of the moment can be removed, as well as repeating information and the mentioning that indeed there are ethnic clashes and fighting happening in SS. Here is the summary about what essentially happened since the alleged mutiny on 15.12 and the government response/fighting in Juba on 16.12. I just used exactly the same sentences from the article, just shortened it. And included todays fighting in Upper Nile. Hopefully it will help editing the article.

17.12:

  • Despite government claims of having quashed the coup, fighting renewed on 17 December near the presidential palace and other areas of Juba. Machar's house had been bombarded and "surrounded, including with tanks", while "parts of Juba have been reduced to rubble"
  • Fighting occurred between the Dinka and Nuer at military barracks in in Pibor in Jonglei amid reports of ethnically targeted killings. Military spokesman Colonel Philip Aguer said that there was overnight fighting among troops in Jonglei on 17-18 December and that he was verifying reports of desertions from the military

18.12:

  • in Juba, a semblance of calm had returned by 18 December with a trickle of traffic.
  • Machar spoke for the first time since the crisis began in which he said he was not aware of any coup attempt, but instead blamed Kiir for fabricating such allegations of a coup in order to settle political scores and target political opponents.

19.12:

  • On 19 December, a Nuer militia headed by Peter Gadet, the defected former 8th Division Commander, claimed control of Bor, Jonglei.
  • UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said that Nuer fighters then stormed one of its compounds in Akobo, Jonglei in pursuit of civilians who had sought refuge there. (+ info about killed peacekeepers)
  • The rebels had reportedly taken over at least some of the country's oil fields amidst fears of Sudan intervening in the country. Heavy clashes were reported in Bentiu, Unity State

20.12:

  • Following calls from the government of South Sudan, Ugandan soldiers were deployed in Juba. The first soldiers in the country assisted in securing the airport and evacuating Ugandan citizen

21.12:

  • On 21 December, four United States troops were injured when gunfire hit two U.S. aircrafts that were on their way to Bor to evacuate U.S. citizens, one of which was heavily damaged

22.12:

  • On 22 December, Machar said he wanted to be the leader of the country and that "his" forces would maintain control of the country's oil fields.
  • Forces loyal to former Vice President Riek Machar have taken control of Bentiu, capital of Unity State, the oil-producing region of the country, South Sudan's military spokesman Colonel Philip Aguer announced on Sunday. Machar asserted that a military government was put in place in Unity.

23.12:

  • South Sudans army spokesman confirmed fighting has reached Upper Nile, saying it put down a mutiny near Malakal.

80.187.96.129 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24.12:

"Though the international news media have..."

[edit]

This kind of expression is a gigantic red flag for any seasoned Wikipedia editor that an ethnic dispute has spilled over into our encyclopedia. It is possible that the academic community and the news community are at odds as to what the reality of the situation is, in which case we would defer to the more reliable academic sources. But we would need to include inline citations to the sources, and not simply claim "IT IS ON THE PAGE" as if that has ever been an acceptable answer on Wikipedia. Expecting me to read the page to determine the accuracy of this claim would be asking me to synthesize materials. Our job while editing this encyclopedia is much more mundane and uncontroversial. We say what the sources say. If there are no sources that say exactly this, we don't say it.

Therefore, as a compromise, I will keep the material in question but restore the inline citation templates to warn users about potentially inaccurate material. I will give Lihaas one more chance to provide the inline citations I have requested before once again deleting the material. If it is restored after that, I will seek administrative action.

This is a fairly trivial issue of sourcing. Please provide the sources I've asked for. If you can find none that support your claim, try to calm yourself and look at it objectively; is it really just you trying to say something? Have you read the material and tried to summarize it or have you made an opinion and then sought material to support it? Sources are just about the least controversial dispute you can have on this website. As soon as they are provided (assuming they are reliable), I will have no more complaints. I really hope we can avoid escalating this any farther, but I need your cooperation to make sure that doesn't happen. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passage

[edit]

The question is this passage:

Though the international news media have depicted the event mainly as an ethnic conflict between the Dinka and Nuer[citation needed], there are also Dinkas and Shilluk on the side of the Nuer rebels such as Rebecca Garang, the widow of the SPLM leader John Garang, and Pagan Amum, respectively; while there are Equatorians on the government Dinka-majority side.[citation needed]

The background section: "Further, Machar and Kiir, while being members of the SPLM, are members of different tribes. Kiir is an ethnic Dinka, while Machar is an ethnic Nuer." is from (verbatim) The fighting seemed to pit soldiers from Kiir's Dinka tribe against those from the Nuer tribe of Machar. Then going forward refers to Garang [6](probs taken from here itself, knowing the ineidian media and Amum [7][8] as Dinka and Shilluk (viewable here and on their page). Chief Whip Ayahu supports the government We Equatorians will promote dialogue. We will not accept undemocratic methods to come into power. At present there is a leader in place. And this leader will have to complete his term of office. Those who may be thinking to take over power by means of violence will not be accepted by the Equatorians. Then the new bit I added and sourced says that the framework of conflict on ethnic terms is distorted as such it was used for state power games in a sectarian way. conflict in the Sudan, before the division of the country into two, was described as a war between Muslim and Christian or Arabs against Africans. Now it is claimed that the Dinka and Neur are killing one another in South Sudan. Characterising conflicts in the continent as either tribal or religious has a long history. / Many, however, fail to realize that the causes of these conflicts are not necessarily ethnic or religious in nature but can be better kexplained within the context of existing political and economic forces that are driven by illegitimate exploitation of state power. Such misuse of governmental authority turns the state into a sectarian force Lihaas (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asa note , It seems Sudan Tribune is blatantly on Kiir/governments side. Highly biased here.Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at that link: www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/12/central-africa-crisis-cherchez-la-france-201312217213133232.html
This could not be more obvious. Opinion pieces can not go unattributed if they are used at all. Further, regardless of whether or not the material is present somewhere in the article, the onus is on you to provide the sources to me when I challenge the material. It is not my responsibility to go digging through the article for a source that you claim is there. I don't know how long you've been an editor on Wikipedia, but this has never been acceptable, and it won't be, no matter how many times you attempt to avoid the burden of evidence for controversial material.
So here's where we stand right now. The only source you have for your claim is an opinion piece. The passage in question does not label it as such. Further, the information in question is in the lead, and even if we were going to include it in the article, that's not where it would go. Then we need to consider WP:WEIGHT, how many sources agree with this source's interpretation? Can you find any others? We have one author disputing the opinions of every other author. This would fall under our policies for WP:FRINGE and WP:CONSPIRACY. This is not appropriate material for Wikipedia. Remove it. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, you questioned my last source. (and thats not even the bulk of what you requested tags on) What about the first that is verbatim about the content as showing the ethnic element? So which part do you want to remove? The ethnic conflict part as viewed between Dinka and Nuer is common and there are other sources. (See below) As is Garang and Amum's case of differeing ethnicity. The Equatorian speaker is also sourced here as being on Kiirs side.
BTW- it IS in the article FIRST, (was changed in rgards to the section above about the ethnic aspect) its not in the lead and "IF we include in the article". Much as I indicated in my reply above as it being in the background section.
I don't see where the issue is? The last paragraph/reference youre quoting back to me is not part of what you tagged as citations needed. The 2 passages I quoted above as needing citations have the citations as I showed, Al Jazeera is RS and has mentioned the differences explicitly. More of the ethnic aspect mentioned here too [9][10]. Is that fringe of conspiracy? they are framing it as such. as does this, which is closer to the ground realirty Yet the factual part is that the other players ARE of a different ethnicity (in Garangs case even the same as Kiir yet on Machars side), while the speaker is yet another ethnicity on Kiir's side.
So what do you propose? I certainly think the ethnic element needs to be mentiond but the due caveat that it is broader (especially Garang's siding with Machar which is highly notable) needs to be mentioned.
Im agreeing to discuss everything here with you without changing anything. Lets continue that. I even gave you a heads up that I replied here and YOU can be the one to remove the tag.Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding the citation templates to the statement about the international news media. That sentence says, "everyone is wrong." The following sentence, in that context, says, "this is what is actually correct". If not for the first sentence, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the second. When I add a citation template, it is a warning to our readers that they should be suspicious of material, not reject it completely. When you delete dispute templates like this, you are attempting to claim that no dispute exists, and are thus potentially misleading our readers. Further, warning templates serve as an alternative to edit warring. If you would reject even this small compromise, then I don't know what I can do to work with you.

You asked what I propose. Here is what I think is the only option with the sources we have:

  • The statement about the international news media is deleted completely. It is sourced to an opinion piece and not encyclopedic material for the various reasons I've mentioned.
  • An inline citation is added to the second sentence. You have multiple sources for this. Use them.
  • Rephrasing for better flow.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic conflicts

[edit]

Removed this, as this is pretty much the point being made by the sources (not me) that it is MORE than any ethnic conflict even though cloaked in a veneer of this element.(Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Article size

[edit]

In order to prevent some future conflict, since we are 2/3 through the way to being too long an article and itll probably expand. Hhow should we split the page? Should we split the main bit of prose or the respose/reaction to another article?(Lihaas (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Thats why I suggested above that you should first edit the article and remove unnecessary information and trim the size of the article. The conflict is not even two weeks old and can last quite a bit. 80.187.97.33 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]

someone please find which the 5th state that is in conflict as of 25 December 2013 is? According to the media there are 5 but no one names them, by collating info I have come up with 4.(Lihaas (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

The OCHA on 27.12 named Central Equatoria, Jonglei, Unity, Upper Nile (these four are a clear case), as well as Warap and Eastern Equatoria as states being affected by violence. Also, as a personal guess, the location and the fact that over 40,000 displaced people have fled there, will very likely affect Lakes State much. Though I also have seen just the four states as being explicitely named as places where fighting happened. 80.187.97.33 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

I propose the name of the article to be changed to 2013 South Sudanese conflict or 2013-2014 South Sudanese conflict since 2014 is coming up, because simply a political crisis it is not. EkoGraf (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article which suggested user EkoGraf more correct for this article. Since in South Sudan is not a political crisis there now armed conflict. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's good example how this article should be called.Northern Mali conflict or Central African Republic conflict (2012–13) Hanibal911 (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is now a full scale armed conflict. Each side has armed forces battling each other. I think the title should be changed to South Sudanese conflict (2013–present).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with South Sudanese conflict (2013–present). EkoGraf (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with South Sudanese conflict (2013–present). Hanibal911 (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we need a name change. All major news outlets agree that it's on the brink of "civil war" so we'll most likely have to change it again in a few days.Keitsist (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree also. Civil war is the best term but media not widely using said term yet so South Sudan Conflict is probably better or a similar term. Kspence92 20:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.120.76 (talk) [reply]

The term "civil war" is already used in the media. 3bdulelah (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SSLM/A mistakes

[edit]

This article has several egregious mistakes going all the way through it. The SSLM/A is not the primary rebel group at the moment. Ex-SSLA troops are principally on Kiir's side: when Koang Chuol defected in Bentiu, it was ex-SSLA units of the SPLA under Jang who advanced against Koang Chuol. See here: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49286. None of the sources cited even mention the SSLA. Although a Nuer faction is reportedly led by Peter Gadet, this is inaccurate to call this faction the SSLA. Keitsist (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War

[edit]

The conflict meets all conventional definitions of civil war. Request article name change to "South Sudanese Civil War." 76.106.123.223 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is it needs to be the common name per reliable sources (as Wikipedia procedure and rules dictate), regardless if it fits the conventional definitions or not. EkoGraf (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Major newspapers are increasingly calling it a civil war. See the three sources cited in the article intro plus:

Again the term "civil war" is used.

United Nations as belligerent

[edit]

The box appears to show the United Nations as a belligerent on the side of the Government. I do not think that is so explicitly the case in reality. The Central African Republic Conflict has three columns instead where France and peacekeeping troops are labeled under. Why not do that here? JustBeCool (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Seleka (which is still lead by Djotodia on paper) is seen as part of the problem and are actively engaged and disarmed by France and UN forces there.
While on the same time noone in the international community has called for the disarment of the SPLA and dissolution of the SPLM and Kiir is recognized as legitimate president of South Sudan.Fehixx (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be talking about an unrelated matter so I'll take it you did not understand my point. To be more clear, this article has two columns for two sides in the conflict and the United Nations is listed as being on the government side. However, the United Nations is not taking sides right now and their peacekeepers are only mandated to protect civilians. So why do not we list them under a third column just as the UN, France and United States Africa Command are listed in the third column in the Central African Republic conflict since they are not on seleka's or anti-balaka's side? JustBeCool (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really dont seem to get your point, because the UN is pretty obviosly on the side of the SS government, as in contrast to CAR. The UNMISS mandate is:
  • Support the Government of the Republic of South Sudan in exercising its responsibilities for conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution and protect civilians
  • Support the government of the Republic of South Sudan in developing its capacity to provide security, to establish rule of law, and to strengthen the security and justice sectors.Fehixx (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was its pre-war mandate, and it doesn't state that the UN is committed to taking the side of the South Sudanese Government in any kind of conflict anyway. As there are no sources provided to support the claim that the UN is a co-belligerent of the South Sudanese Government I've just removed this from the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Including the UN in a 3rd column the infobox seems undue to me. It gives the impression that this is a 3-way war, which is not an accurate depiction.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abreviations/Acronyms in lead

[edit]

It would probably be a good idea to expand in parentheses the first occurrence of each, such as for NLC, SPLM, etc. Where relevant and there exist corresponding articles, making them links would also be helpful for readers. The lead is the introduction, afterall. Thanks. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was already much better today, I added a few links to complete. Thanks for helping out. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title change again

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title was "South Sudanese conflict (2013 - present)" but then a user changed it to the current, "South Sudanese conflict (2013 - 2014)" after the signing of the ceasefire. However, as the infobox shows and, I would presume, most observers and editors agree, the conflict is not over and arguably more intense than before the ceasefire. So, I think the title "South Sudanese conflict (2013-present) should be brought back. JustBeCool (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we rather move it to South Sudanese Civil War, as this conflict certainly qualifies as a civil war and is described as such by many sources. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article should be renamed South Sudanese Civil War 3bdulelah (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
South Sudanese Civil War is already a redirection page. Can someone who knows how move this article? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudanese conflict (2013–14) → South Sudanese Civil War – This is clearly a civil war by now, rather than just a 'conflict'. See sources in the main article Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict qualifies as a civil war per definition and has been described as such by various sources for a long time. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is a civil war. Charles Essie (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Strength & casualties numbers

[edit]

None of the sources are confirmed or reliable, and there is no given exact number for the strength of either side; thus the current numbers are in a way, making one side look far more superior than it really is. CentreLeftRight (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on South Sudanese Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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 16:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Sudanese Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End of the war?

[edit]

Did the war end? I mean the leaders of both sides created united government. Also no reports about any Dinka/Nuer killings. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libya also has an united government, but there's still war. I'd call the section rather something like 'reunified government' or something like this.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's taking place in Libya is considered a second civil war. Also, sources have been provided stating that the war that started in 2013 ended in August 2015. And the current clashes are described as creating fear of a new civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:EkoGraf, I do not care too much either way, but something for consideration is that for the fighting going on right now, it is hard to find many reports now referring to it as creating a fear of a new civil war. Reports now consider this fighting part of the same civil war started in 2013 with a significant ceasefire in between. Here are reports that call this fighting a civil war,
  • New York Times "South Sudan, where a civil war has been raging for three years" - [13]
  • Christian Science Monitor - [14]
  • Business Insider - [15]
  • Voice of America "embroiled in civil war since 2013" [16]
  • Reuters not taking the position that the conflict ended, "a civil conflict erupted in South Sudan in 2013, but President Salva Kiir and his rival former vice-President Riek Machar signed a peace deal in 2015 that was meant to halt the fighting. The agreeement failed to stick." It also mentions the position of the Asahi Newspaper "South Sudan is effectively in a state of civil war". [17]
  • Fox news' position that the peace deal "failed to stop the civil war" (in the video) [18] JustBeCool (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JustBeCool; while it is true that the fighting in the east has mostly abated (despite continued clashes in the north and the recent resurgence of the Cobra Faction), the conflict never ended in the Equatoria region, where militias both loyal to or indepedent of Machar (for example the Arrow Boys) continued to fight - and these battles still rage on. In the last few months, there were also significant battles with hundreds of dead in other western regions (most notably Wau). In my opinion, the civil war had a ceasefire phase, but still continues. Applodion (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back. Times have changed. JustBeCool (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the map image change on the mobile version?

[edit]

Can you tell me why the mobile version of that page uses a different map? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War

I get a totally different map showing the red occupying much more territory than the green when accessing the mobile version of the page. Both images claim to be the same date in the subheading, and this is accessing both from the same browser, same machine etc, just adding .m. to the url. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:FD30:3021:10F:2EB4:603A (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South Sudanese Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 10:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede para

[edit]

Lede paragraphs are far too long. They need to be incorporated into the main body of the article. --Mwoofsh (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Material copied to another Wikipedia page

[edit]

Material from this article has been copied to the Wikiedia article 2010s political history.Michael E Nolan (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the war over?

[edit]

Did the war end on February 22, 2020 with the formation of a unity government? While I would argue that the war actually ended with the signing of the R-ARCSS on September 12, 2018 as there was little conflict between the main groups after it, I would say the war is definitely over with the resolution of the political conflict in the formation of the unity government. While some groups like SS-UF and NAS (which recently committed to a ceasefire) continue to oppose the government, the actual military action is much more like the insurgencies of the pre-civil war period, as all of the remaining groups are relatively small. Thus, I propose to mark the war as ended and if more violence occurs with any of these groups, to make an "Blank insurgency in South Sudan" page. Leviavery (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am generally not a fan of official end dates for wars while fighting (even if it is low-level) continues, I agree that the main combat phase appears to be over. My stance on the issue is thus mostly neutral; perhaps we should ask other editors who had made major contributions to the page and related topics for their opinion as well. @JustBeCool: and @Bulbajer:, what do you think? Applodion (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong feelings either way. Maybe, just to be on the cautious side, we should wait a week or two to watch for any deterioration in the situation, but I will defer to more experienced Wikipedia editors. Bulbajer (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As always, we have to go by the sources' judgment. Right now, they seem undecided as well, with BBC stating that this is aiming to end six years of war [19] and Al Jazeera asking if six of war is over [20]. So, I wouldn't want to rush to a conclusion so soon. JustBeCool (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sound cynical, there have been a couple of ceasefires and unity governments since January 2014 and all of them ended with the war starting again. If the current peace deal holds for a significant period of time, then we can say the war is over. But as much as I sympathize with the suffering people of South Sudan, everything about their leaders suggests this peace agreement won't last-notably the two sides are arming like mad for another bout of fighting, which is a hardly encouraging sign of lasting peace.--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Sudanese_Civil_War&oldid=1195110282"