Talk:War in Darfur/Archive 1

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

---

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

---

Hmm I think people are loosing focus in this race debate here. For one thing Arab according to the definition of the Arab union has a broad meaning which can range from speaking arabic, to identifying oneself as such, all the way to simply being sympathtic to the 'arab' cause, whatever that means. I have no problem with the Janjaweed Sudanese being identified as Arab since they speak Arabic, Arabic is an official language in Sudan, there by technically making all Sudanese Arabs according to the arab union, it doesn't really say anything about their race. From my understanding the conflict is based on fighting over resources with an underlying caste tone to it. That is you have the dark skin people in Darfur fighting with the lighter skinned people for centuries on a small scale (ie like in India) and finally one day the dark darfuris take up arms against the government who seems to be supporting lighter Darfuris because they are Arabic speakers not because of skin color. My research also suggested that Arabication and islamication of Sudan was a major conflcit in the country. Further the only difference between the Arabic darfuris and the african darfuris besides language and culture is that the Africans were like farmers or hurders while the arabs were like nomads and were going around eating off african farms, which pissed of the darker darfuris making the situation worse. I have seen white arab and black arabs, but based on my research the word arab can be seen kind of like hispanics in america. Once you start calling yourself arab no one really makes a distinction regarding your race. Such that one could refer to a Syrian or Jordanian who are obviously white as an Arab or a Sudanese or Mauritania who are obviously black as an Arab without no appearant contradiction. Much like how an American can call Carlos Delgado hispanic but Ricki Martin hispanic without no appearant contradiction. Further I doubt that the race of any of these people would be called into question if one saw such a person from Sudan but I could understand why one would be lead to believe that there were white arabs in the janjaweed because that is what the media has suggested and I used to believe before seeing pictures of the omar al bashir. Perhaps that is why the media does not show his face.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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]

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)

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)

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.

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?

In the opening paragraph a comparison is made between the death toll estimated by WHO at 40,000 in 2004 and one of 500,000 estimated by Dr Eric Reeves in February 2007. This is a thoroughly unencyclopedic comparison. A proper comparison is between two sets of figures covering a similar timespan. I recommend placing the WHO estimate into its proper context elsewhere in the article and sourcing a much more current low estimate, if a comparison needs to be made.

Estimated number of deaths in the conflict have ranged from 50,000 (World Health Organization, September 2004) to 500,000 (Dr. Eric Reeves, February 6, 2007)[3]. Most NGOs use 400,000, a figure from the Coalition for International Justice that has since been cited by the United Nations. As many as 2.5 million are thought to have been displaced.[4] (See Counting deaths section, below)

Jez 22 February 2007

I'm changed the lead to mention on the "common" estimate. If you set up an account, you can edit semiprotected pages after a wait of a couple days and won't have to wait for others. Thanks, BanyanTree 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

May 2005.

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

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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. HKT^Talk 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. HKT^Talk 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. HKT^Talk 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) —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

"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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

so its a measure between consensus and reality that dictates facts.

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)

to add to this i have a question for the person who wrote this. How many lives does it take to start a genocide? What does a child do when he/she has her Mom, Dad, brothers ans sisters raped and killed? Us americans wont intervene because theres no oil there, and thats sad and i know this will be deleted but God help us now even though i believe he left this earth a long time ago.

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)

Barack Obama

Could somebody here who is following the Darfur situation closer than me please add something NPOV 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.

Deleted

I removed has 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)

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)

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)

What about this?

The Sudanese government has signed a peace deal with the eastern rebels. [14]—Preceding unsigned comment 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.

Incorrect Image

Theres currently a picture of Coolio as the first image in the article... seriously who cares for te ad u dumfuck?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.254.5.137 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

there is a lot of mixing up going on. the government does not deny that it uses the popular defense forces who are a paramilitary force which operates under the direct command of the army, but sometimes people refer to these as the janjaweed, who are basically armed bandits with whom the government denies any links. attribution of atrocities on the janjaweed should make it clear if the accused are the paramilitary forces acting on orders of the army of just armed bandits to avoid confusion.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---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)

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)

what UN and other forces need to know that they cannot get from the secret intelligence community

All, this is a very impressive page, exactly what I hope will become standard as Wikipedia eventually out-performs the secret intelligence world (imagine what you all could do with $1.2 billion a *week*!).

If anyone is interested, as an experienced professional and aware that there may be pressure on Bush to "do something" soon, here are questions that would need to be answered for the commanders and staff of coalition forces that may be sent to do armed peacekeeping:

1. Current summary of the situation in 5 paragraphs--unit sizes and leadership from all parties, locations of base camps, general capabilities in terms of air and ground platforms, crew served weapons.

2) Current locations and status (starvation, disease, crime, rebel penetration and recruitment) of the refugee camps and refugees groups in motion. A clickable GoogleEarth map for 1 and 2 would be vastly superior to anything the secret world is willing to produce now.

3) Communications devices, frequencies, and if available, unit codes or designations. What can volunteers that speak the language (the US National Security Agency and tactical US military units suck at African languages) learn from current open broadcast monitoring? Is there a volunteer group in Europe or Africa that can start posting real-time intercepts?

4) What are the relationships among the Sudanese government, the Chadian government, the armed forces of Sudan and of Chad, and the varied rebel groups and refugee leaders if any, especially at the personal level. How are they in contact with what frequency? What is recent and projected history of their agreements? How are the key players in perpetuating the genocide and slowing down US and UN intervention, who are the key players that must be won over? [Note the US negotiators know a lot of this, believe it or not they are not sharing this information with the US military....inter-agency collaboration is dead under this Administration.]

5) Given that Darfur is one of 17 genocides now active (see www.genocidewatch.org) but the only one that has Hollywood and full page newsprinit ads going for it, what recent and impending genocides are anticipated in Darfur region that can be listed and shown on the GoogleEarth map with thumbtacks?

6) What foreign elements, e.g. Chinese, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, are present in Chad or Sudan with specific influence or or interest in Dafur? What are their plans, intentions, and capabilities?

7) Does anyone have 1:50,000 maps with contour lines of the entire border area in which one would have to operate to stop the genocide and separate the belligerents? What is the best mapping information available immediately, in 30 days, in 60 days, in 90 days? [NOTE: In my experience, the National Geospacial-Intelligence Agency has no maps at this tactical level on the shelf, and would need at least $10 million and 180 days to produce them, but first someone would have to give them the money and the order, and tell them what NOT to produce while they do this....in other words, they are not part of the solution.]

I've come to the conclusion that the best way I can be helpful to Wikipedia is to provide requirements and suggestions rather than enter data directly. I will glady review any page and help anyone who wishes to understand the decision-support paradigm that I am interested in achieving for all topics. See www.oss.net, the free Public Intelligence on ten threats, twelve policies, and eight challengers. Welcome spill-over from there to Wikipedia if desired.

Best wishes, Robert Steele 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== I recently read some interesting articles about US involvement (or according to the authors, the cause of) in the conflict. I'm not sure if it's true, but it basically posits that the US funded and trained, first the southern Sudan civil war, and now the Darfur conflict, to both "hassle" the Islamist Khartoum government and to get at the large amount of oil there. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/IE25Cb04.html http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/darfur%20report.html#us Can someone more knowledgeable than me give more info about whether there's any truth in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.113.89 (talk • contribs)

Is this vandalism?

This edit was made by an IP that had vandalized the article a minute earlier, changing 14th to 15th centuries, etc. Can anyone with the knowledge verify which is the right info? Thanks, delldot | talk 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent edits were definitely vandalism and I've reverted the lot. - BanyanTree 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some changes today are vandalism, but I am not familiar enough with the conflict to sort it out. Keep up the good fight! --Petercorless 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

External links go on the bibliography page

Given that the community decided to split up this page into multiple pages, I think that external links should properly go on the bibliography page, not this one. There were two external links and one "see also" that were quite random and, I think, just an attempt by people behind those projects to get them more exposure. They were certainly not the best or most useful of the external links. I think we should commit to just keeping all of the links on the bibliography page or people will be continually pushing their pet projects just to get more hits. ivan 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Confused about the multiple timelines in this section

Up until this page was split into multiple pages (summer '06), some of us were contributing to an ongoing timeline of facts about the conflict. That was moved over to international response to the Darfur conflict, which is fine. But it seems like since that time, a new timeline has begun on this page. It doesn't reference the other timeline, and while the first two years are basically overview summaries, the past few months have been recounted in as detailed a way as in the other timeline. So where should these go? I think we should either have a single timeline, with perhaps a very short summary on this page and reference to that article as the full version, or we should clearly determine what items should go on the "main" timeline and what should go on the "other" timeline. Right now I'm confused. ivan 00:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that this is still an issue and hoping someone will notice the edit...does anyone agree with me that two timelines on two pages is confusing? ivan 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Darfur Genocide

Calling it a conflict instead of a genoside is downplaying the event.--Sefringle 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But this article wants to give a political and demographic history, which starts before there was genocide and which gives the context for the genocide. You can't adequately describe the development of the conflict with the term "genocide." Don't move it. Michael Savitz 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Genocide is one aspect of the conflict. The creation of massive numbers of IDPs and foreign refugees can be construed as "ethnic cleansing" (depopulating wide swaths of area) but is not genocide per se (some die, but most move elsewhere, such as to refugee camps or enclaves). There is also the rebellion of the SLA, which is an armed conflict or insurrection. All these different aspects must be considered in the overall conflict. I am not denying that mass killings occur. However, there is more than mass-killings occurring. Hence, I agree to use the term "conflict," though I am not adverse to seeing the term "genocide" appear, cited properly, of course, to keep backlash and argumentation from breaking out. --Petercorless 02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The conflict isn't only genocide. It's also about the lead-up and Sudan's past. It also covers the beliefs and causes. However, I wouldn't mind a separate genocide article. 75.57.142.231 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification in "Unleashing the Janjaweed" section

This sentence concerns me--"Nevertheless, in the middle months of 2003, the rebels won 0 of 38 engagements"--because it comes in the middle of a passage describing (at that time) the rebels' successes against the government forces. Can anyone fix or clarify this? Michael Savitz 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It was "34 of 38" before the paragraph was messed up by a vandal. I've pasted in the paragraph from last October and semiprotected the page. - BanyanTree 18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The ICC has laid charges

The ICC have laid charges of 'war crimes' against 2 individuals in the Sudanese government. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6404467.stm Someone wants to add that to the article? 217.7.209.108 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Started this section i'm going to look for what the 51 charges actually are, i remeber from a news report that it included mass murder and mass rape. If anyone else has info please add it here or in the article.Hypnosadist 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Link

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a few related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=18 concerning the conflict in Darfur, Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blendus, There actually shouldn't even be an external links section on this page, as everything but references is at Bibliography of the Darfur conflict. You are free to add links there under the appropriate section. However, if you're planning to add multiple links to your site, this may be treated as spam and it would be far better to add a single link to the front page of your Darfur section.

Also, I noticed that you have some great photos. The copyright holder might want to consider putting them under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA, and uploading them to Commons: into Category:Darfur conflict. A backlink to the originating webpage is encouraged in these cases, though the admins there will probably want to make sure that the claim to be the copyright holder is legitimate. Cheers, BanyanTree 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Chad-lake is desert

the war is going because of water or just for the relegion?--Tamás Kádár 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC) it has nothing to do with religion.Chabchaba 10:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is Prunier?

I have found that a lot of entries are referenced to Prunier. as a sudanese I see that his information is not reliable. e.g. saying that Al Sadig Al Mahdi had promised to turn Darfur over to Gaddafi.. which is something that I have never heard from another source and I doubt that anyone else has, and also is unbelievable since most of Al Mahdi's supporters are from Darfur so he has nothing to gain, but a lot to lose by giving it to Gaddafi.. who is Prunier and what are his sources? if no one can confirm his credibility and his sources, then I suggest that all information referenced to him is to be considered unreliable and removed. Chabchaba 10:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would recommend checking his Wikipedia entry first: Gerard Prunier. In case you don't get that far, here's the synopsis: "Prunier received a PhD in African History in 1981 from the University of Paris. In 1984, he joined the CNRS scientific institution in Paris as a researcher. He later also became Director of the French Centre for Ethiopian Studies in Addis Ababa. Prunier has published over 120 articles and five books." He's clearly been writing about Darfur and the entire eastern region of Africa for some time. And, as you note, he's often cited, quoted and interviewed on the subject (many of the citations on Wikipedia are to the BBC, the (UK) Independent, the (UK) Guardian, etc.). You can certainly disagree with his positions and annotate them with others' contradictory positions, but he's clearly notable and experienced enough to be seen as a reliable source. ivan 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you. I have checked him and also checked some of his articles about Sudan in le monde diplomatique. this has further augmented my doubts about his credibility. his articles are mostly opinions and no sources are cited. Some information he provides is just WRONG like this quote from an article about the naivasha peace talks "The final obstacle is the status of the Nouba Mountains, the Blue Nile province and the Abyei region in Southern Kordofan. Although those three regions have Christian-majority, black African populations, they were allocated to the north in the February 1972 peace agreement that ended the first civil war (1955-1972)"[15]. This is just untrue regarding the Nouba Mountains & the Blue Nile province (I'm not sure about Abyei)[16][17].

there is also no record of him ever being in Darfur, or even in any part of Sudan. The problem that faces us who want to keep the information in wikipedia strictly factual is that it is difficult to find a reliable non partisan source that can challenge his information. what we should do is to check the sources that widely quoted sources like prunier cite for their information. if we find that he (or any other widely quoted source) has a pattern of providing unsupported (or clearly incorrect) claims then we should just regard the source as unreliable. this is especially important for a sensitive and politically charged issue like the darfur conflict because wikipedia is usually the first result you get for a google search on any subject, so any erreneous data can lead to widespread misinformation. It's a tough job but anyone who is interesting in integrity and reliability of the information provided by wikpedia please help out on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chabchaba (talk • contribs)

The direct quote from Prunier's book is:

"...Sadiq needed money for the coming electoral campaigns, and in his mind Darfur was also going to provide that, albeit indirectly. The reason was that Gaddafi was still looking towards Darfur as a stepping-stone leading to Chad and a Greater Sahelian Arab Empire and that since the 1970s he had considered the Umma leader to be the mixture of ally and puppet he had so often used in the region. This enabled Sadiq to tempt him with a promise of delivering Darfur to Libya in exchange for several million dollars in election funds"

It is footnoted to "Le Monde, 3 April 1985". So one can keep going back through the chain of attribution.

I think you're arguing above that the "the Christian-majority, black populations" part of the sentence you quote is wrong? Or the 1972 peace deal part? It's true that its sloppily worded, but the point that sections of Sudan with significant 'African' populations were classified as "Northern" is still valid. In any case, the article you are referring to was written before the book being quoted. - BanyanTree 12:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth?

I just noticed that google earth bordered darfur with orange, put a link to darfur conflict and marked the damaged/destroyed towns. Should this also be included in the article? and if yes, where? Kerem Özcan 08:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this should be mentioned somewhere in the article, Google Earth has the whole conflict mapped out.

The conflict is between the militia group and who?

I am confused as to who the conflict is between. I know one side is the militia group (the Janjaweed), but who is on the other side? The Darfur article states "between Janjaweed militias and rebel groups (namely the Sudan Liberation Movement and Justice and Equality Movement)", yet this article states: "between the Janjaweed...and the non-Baggara people (mostly land-tilling tribes) of the region." So who are the Janjaweed up against? Are these tribes part of the rebel groups? If not, can this be clarified? --GVOLTT 07:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reworded the lead in an attempt to clarify this. What I'm trying to get across, in about three sentences, is the groundwork of an explanation that rebel groups (in a constantly shifting constellation) sprang up in Darfur to fight the government. The rebels come from a limited number of agriculturalist tribes. The army was getting its butt kicked so set up a paramilitary force (the Janjaweed) drawn from an ethnic group (the northern pastoralists) that already had tensions with the pastoralists to attack the populace from which the rebels drew support (a classic counterinsurgency tactic - think the creation of reservations in the North American Indian Wars, villagization during the Mau Mau Revolt or Vietnam War, and the 'protected villages' of current day northern Uganda). Hopefully, what I've written in the lead and above are not contradictory. Comments? - BanyanTree 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

SLM/Minnawi

From his article: "On September 14, 2006, Minnawi broke ranks with the Sudanese government when he stated that he does not object to the new UN peacekeeping force detailed in UNSC Resolution 1706." Here, he's still on the Khartoum side. --HanzoHattori 10:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He's definitely not with the non-signatories to the peace agreement. The Minnawi faction has been implicated in the recent murders of five peacekeepers, and its not entirely clear whether this was planned or the result of a lack of control of forces on the ground. A recent Washington Post article and pro-government outlet both write as if Minnawi is still on the government side. - BanyanTree 23:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Chinese arms isssue

The presence of Nanchang Q-5 doesn't necessarily involve the chinese military ties of Sudan government,this jet bombers had been used by several other countries such as Bangladesh,Myanmar,North Koreaand Pakistan how can you imply the chinese arm supports just by one photo？--Ksyrie 10:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question I will quote from the Amnesty International Report that was the source of the photo:

"Sudan imported $24 million worth of arms and ammunition from the People’s Republic of China, as well as nearly $57 million worth of parts and aircraft equipment and $2 million worth of parts of helicopters and aeroplanes from China, according to the data from Sudan for 2005, the last available trade figures. During a meeting in Beijing, the Defence Minister of China reportedly told Sudan's joint chief of staff that military relations had been "developing smoothly" and said: "[We] are willing to further develop military co-operation between our two countries in all areas."(17) The Chinese company AviChina Industry and Technology recently delivered six K-8 military training/attack aircraft to the Sudanese Air Force and a further six will follow soon, according to a military magazine.(18) Beijing Aviation Science and Technology Co. (BASC), a subsidiary of the China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), has announced on its website that it has developed and produced flight simulators for Sudan for their K-8S jets.(19) These simulators were delivered to the Sudan Air Force in 2005.(20) The K-8S is widely used as a basic training jet for fighter pilots. Some of the Sudanese Air Force fighter pilots will eventually graduate onto the NAMC Q-5 ‘Fantan’ after undergoing basic training on the K-8S. The export version of the Q-5 is known as the A-5 ‘Fantan’.(21) Amnesty International is concerned that the Sudan Air Force has transferred these jet bombers to Darfur (see photograph and details below) without authority from the UN Sanctions Committee and is highly likely to use these newly acquired jets, as it has other aircraft, and the acquisition of expertise to fly the jets supplied from China, for indiscriminate attacks in Darfur in violation of the UN arms embargo and international humanitarian law, thus also posing serious questions about the systems of accountability and training provided to the Sudan Air Force to ensure respect for that universal law."

15 United Nations COMTRADE trade data for the year 2005; unfortunately the COMTRADE data for 2006 is not yet available.
16 Amnesty International, November 2004, op cit
17 Financial Times, 4 April 2007
18 Air Forces Monthly, December 2006

"Between January 2007 and March 2007, Chinese A-5 ‘Fantan’ jet fighters were seen parked at Nyala airport (see Table 2 below). These aircraft are specifically designed to be used for ground attack operations. In early March a large bomb and some green ammunition boxes were seen next to the jets.46 In March 2007, a third A-5 ‘Fantan’ jet (reg. number 410) was seen at Nyala airport. An Antonov military plane was also seen at various places in Darfur between January and March 2007"

Custodiet ipsos custodes User talk:Custodiet ipsos custodes 11:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So what is the relation between the Dafur conflict and chinese military export？As all your sources states that the A-5 were the deal of 2005,two years before the Dafur conflict.So why not blame some western countries such as Sudan chemical weapons allegations from Norway, GermanySudan chemical weapons allegations from Norway, Germany，Destabilizing Sudan: US Weapons for SPLA Freedom Fighters，British firm breaks Sudan arms boycott--Ksyrie 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese are continuing to provide arms to the Sudanese Government that are then being used to commit mass murder. As to your point of other nations also doing it. Well I deplore it and I think it also should be mentioned. However, that said, the Chinese government is continuing to do this, where as the Times article mentioned 2 companies that have ceased to do it. Global research is very partisan. Do you have another source for their allegation? As to the alleged NPA allegations. I do not know anything about them. But, whatever the case they are not selling arms to anyone. China and Russia are. And people are dieing in massive numbers as a consequence. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you justify your claims 'Chinese are continuing to provide arms to ...'? You just pop up a 2005 arms deal to blame chinese military support,but at that time,how can China envisage the massacre 2 years later,and for the chinese jet bombers,why not you blame the americans who had invented this kind of war machine？It was the sudanese militia who used those weapons to do evil,and when a mankiller used a knife to do crime,you are blaming the knife manufacturer or the criminal？Let's keep going on,why not incorporate the US weapons used in the Sudanese civil war? --Ksyrie 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that I do not know what the Chinese government is doing right now. I went too far by saying continuing to do so. The outside world has no evidence as to what is going on at the present as far as I am aware. However the Darfur crisis was occurring in 2005. So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the Sudanese were massacring their own people in 2005 and the Chinese were selling them weapons in 2005 then the Chinese government probably knew of what they were going to be used for. Making this worse, is the fact that the Chinese government constantly defends the Sudanese government.[18], [19], It continues to inhibit sanctions. Of course the reason is quite clear. The two countries have a good business relationship. China needs Sudan's oil.[20]

Your reasoning go tooooo far,in fact for almost all the internal affairs crisis,no matter the countries who were in bussinese with China or not,or whether China really needs the commodities such as oils or other things.The chinese government always say no foreing intervention.It was not the oil that make chinese government's isolationist view of world.In fact, if you check all the declarations by chinese foreign ministry,the unanimous and coherent points are always no,let's the people in their countries to solve their problems,the foreign intervention will make the situ even worse.I can see somehow logical links between the oil and military ties by some journalists.--Ksyrie 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Rwandan Civil War

And the french south african egypt arms trades [21]，[22]--Ksyrie 18:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone can check the Amnesty International Report?

I cann't find accusation for China violating the Arm Embrago[23].--Ksyrie 07:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the quotes from the document accusing China of doing just that:

• page 2: "Amongst other things, it shows how the Government of Sudan violates the UN arms embargo and disguises some of its military logistics operations in Darfur, and what arms supplied to Sudan from China and Russia - two Permanent Members of the Security Council - have been used for violations of the Security Council’s own mandatory arms embargo."--Ksyrie 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It states that it was the Sudan who violates the arm embargo,but not China or Russia,to what I have understood,the arm embargo were meant to imposed on nongovernmental parties before 2004,and until 2005 including Sudan Government.These statesment may just represent the Sudanese Government support the Chinese Arms for the militias clandestinely,while Chinese and Russian arms were legalled transfered to Sudan and already finished.--Ksyrie 12:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Page 7 (first part): "The official data from Sudan and the exporting countries may significantly underestimate the total quantity of military items transferred, but does give an indication of the scale and irresponsible nature of the international trade in arming Sudan, a country already awash with arms. The bulk was transferred from China and Russia, two Permanent Members of the Security Council. The governments of these supplier countries have been, or should have been, aware through the published and unpublished reports of the UN Panel of Experts to the UN Sanctions Committee on Sudan as well as the detailed report by Amnesty International published in November 200416 that several types of military equipment including aircraft have been deployed by the Sudanese armed forces and militia for direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks in Darfur, as well as for logistical support for these attacks."

Per above,This statements doesn't mean China and Russia violate the arm embargo.--Ksyrie 12:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• page 7: "Sudan imported $24 million worth of arms and ammunition from the People’s Republic of China, as well as nearly $57 million worth of parts and aircraft equipment and $2 million worth of parts of helicopters and aeroplanes from China, according to the data from Sudan for 2005, the last available trade figures. During a meeting in Beijing, the Defence Minister of China reportedly told Sudan's joint chief of staff that military relations had been "developing smoothly" and said: "[We] are willing to further develop military co-operation between our two countries in all areas."17 The Chinese company AviChina Industry and Technology recently delivered six K-8 military training/attack aircraft to the Sudanese Air Force and a further six will follow soon, according to a military magazine.18 Beijing Aviation Science and Technology Co. (BASC), a subsidiary of the China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), has announced on its website that it has developed and produced flight simulators for Sudan for their K-8S jets.19 These simulators were delivered to the Sudan Air Force in 2005.20 The K-8S is widely used as a basic training jet for fighter pilots. Some of the Sudanese Air Force fighter pilots will eventually graduate onto the NAMC Q-5 ‘Fantan’ after undergoing basic training on the K-8S. The export version of the Q-5 is known as the A-5 ‘Fantan’.21 Amnesty International is concerned that the Sudan Air Force has transferred these jet bombers to Darfur (see photograph and details below) without authority from the UN Sanctions Committee and is highly likely to use these newly acquired jets, as it has other aircraft, and the acquisition of expertise to fly the jets supplied from China, for indiscriminate attacks in Darfur in violation of the UN arms embargo and international humanitarian law, thus also posing serious questions about the systems of accountability and training provided to the Sudan Air Force to ensure respect for that universal law."

Again,Did you insist on the arm trades before the UN counsil resolution should be counted as violation?--Ksyrie 12:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• page 10: "The Sudanese authorities have also allowed armed opposition groups from Chad that commit grave human rights abuses to operate from Darfur and these groups have obtained small arms and light weapons transferred to Darfur, including recent arms from China.31 For example, in June 2006 Amnesty International reported on the use of arms manufactured in China by Chadian members of the United Front for Democratic Change (Front uni pour le changement démocratique au Tchad, FUC), at that time operating as an armed opposition group from Darfur."

How do you interpret the recent?What is the exact date for the recent arms?--Ksyrie 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• page 21 "Amnesty International also has reason to believe that at least some Kalashnikov assault rifles in the hands of the Janjawid militia are new weapons. In mid 2006, an Amnesty International team visiting Djimeze in eastern Chad near the border with Sudan found the town abandoned with no sign of life. The haste of the departure was clearly visible with only essential things taken. Eye witnesses from other villages showed Amnesty International how the Janjawid militia had carried out the ambush in April 2006. They showed eight places where bodies, including those of infants, had been buried and the smell of putrefaction released from at least two bodies that had been dug up. A skull at the exterior one of the graves and a foot at the exterior one of a collective pit where seven persons had been buried were visible, while the pants of the person were still intact. Around these pits, a pair of sandals that belonged to one of the persons that he had buried, a 45 years old father of three children. “The bodies had not yet decomposed. We buried them fifty centimetres deep. Heavy rains and dogs are the reason why the two bodies could be dug up. Among the people that I buried I recognised my cousins and my son-in-law," said one local villager. Some cartridges were still visible at the sight of the massacre, showing how the persons had been killed in this place, and some arrows, assegais and amulets were also littered on the ground. An analysis of the cartridges carried out for Amnesty International shows that these were fired using Kalashnikov assault rifles, including one in very good and new condition even though the cartridges were generally old and of mixed origin, originally from China, the old East Germany and Eastern Europe, so likely to have been recycled through other government surplus stocks."

Again,originally from China doesnt' mean China is violating the arms embargo.--Ksyrie 12:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that there is a good chance China was involved. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Common sense....Men are intelligent to use common sense.--Ksyrie 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• page 29: "Amnesty International is deeply dismayed by the fact that certain governments, including two Permanent Members of the Security Council – China and Russia - are allowing ongoing flows of arms to parties to Sudan that are diverted for the conflict in Darfur and used there and across the border in Chad to commit grave violations of international law."

To make things clear,what is the meaning of ongoing flows of arms,someone may interpret it as China and Russia are supplying arms to the fighting parties,but maybe another meaning,the ongoing flows are the arms which originally from China and Russia,but now in possesion of other political entities,who are supplying the fighting parties.--Ksyrie 12:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. Most likely China supplied the arms directly.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Most likely,that's what I heard,most likely means that you can accuse anyone who is likely to do anything,that's your point.--Ksyrie 13:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There it is, plain and simple. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 10:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good reasoning.--Ksyrie 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a bigger point here. Amnesty International accused China of breaking the sanctions. You may disagree with them. But they did assert that. And all the major news outlets understood one of their claims to be one of accusing Russia and China of breaking UN sanctions. Ksyrie, you seem to be defending China - no matter what. First you said that other countries should also be blamed. When I conceded that point you then said that China had a blanket policy of keeping nonintervention in other countries internal affairs. Then you denied any source for the accusation against China violating the embargo. Finally when I showed you such an accusation you then attacked the source itself. Now all of this is quite intellectually dishonest. Its quite clear that you are partisan in defending China. However the primary role of an encyclopedia is to try and achieve objectivity as much as possible. By constantly moving the goal posts and making new arguments when your old ones fail you are opening yourself up to accusations that you have an ideological agenda that insists that China not be bad-mouthed. I am wasting my time continuing the discussion with you. If someone makes a point and backs it up, I will concede it. I wont play games though. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No,they are not accusing China and Russia are violating the sanctions.They just said the arms were originally from China and Russia.So what about the arms obtained before the sanctions? And the arms obtained after the UN sanctions were in the control of China or Russia?If the an african country adjacent of Sudan supporting arms for involving parties,did it mean that China and Russia are supplying the arms? I am not denying the sources,but the sources itself didn't make any clear connection between the China is violating Sanction and the Use of weapons.Where,when,how were these arms are seized by fighters?--Ksyrie 13:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Denying the genocide...

I have a Sudanese friend who asserts that there is no genocide and there is zero violence and suffering. I have pointed him at this article but he refuses to read it. What is the easiest way to prove how much of a moron he is and show him the truth?

if you can find some videos photos,article isn't shocking enough for somebody.(I am not the questioner)--Ksyrie 00:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Try the three compare-and-contrast photos in the Washington Post gallery. Point out that farmers are unlikely to burn down their own villages en masse. Similarly, Google Earth marks several such sites. If he is willing to dig a bit more, I recommend the May 2004 special on Darfur by IRIN. I would recommend the work of the International Crisis Group as well, but he would likely dismiss it at being U.S.-associated, despite its headquarters being in Brussels. - BanyanTree 04:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

News Sources talking about Chinese Involvement

Here they are:

China, Russia breach Darfur arms embargo - Amnesty "Human rights group Amnesty International accused Russia and China on Tuesday of breaching a United Nations arms embargo by letting weapons into Sudan, where they are used in "grave violations" of international law. Amnesty said it was "deeply dismayed" by the flow of arms allowed by China and Russia, both members of the United Nations Security Council, and said the weapons were often diverted to be used in conflict in Darfur and neighbouring Chad. "The authority of the Security Council itself is being greatly undermined as the Sudanese authorities and armed groups in Darfur are allowed to act with such obvious impunity before the eyes of the world, importing and diverting arms to commit flagrant violations of international law," Amnesty said."

"China buys much of Sudan's oil, and as a permanent member of the Security Council has resisted proposals to send U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur without Sudan's consent."

Amnesty International criticizes arms sales to Sudan "China and Russia have supplied weapons and aircraft to Sudan that have been used in deadly attacks against civilians in Darfur in violation of a U.N. arms embargo, Amnesty International charged in a report Tuesday. The report cites witnesses who said they saw Russian-made aircraft and helicopter gunships used in bombing raids and traced spent cartridges in raided villages to new Kalashnikov assault rifles. Brian Wood, author of the report, said from London that Amnesty was particularly concerned about 12 Russian MI-24 helicopter gunships acquired by Sudan that are the same type being used in attacks in Darfur.

"Those are the machines that are flying around right now," Wood said, noting that one was shot down last week by a rebel group in Darfur. "The Russian government knows that they are being used in violations of human rights, so how can they in good conscience keep selling them?" The rights group also said it was concerned that Sudan had transferred six K-8 attack aircraft recently acquired from China to Darfur in breach of the ban, and it noted that Khartoum was expecting six more. The report cites Sudanese trade figures showing that in 2005, the year a United Nations resolution banned transfer of weapons to all parties in Darfur, Russia sold almost $35 million in helicopters and other aircraft and China supplied $24 million in arms and $57 million in aircraft equipment."

Congress pressures China on Darfur as Olympics near "China buys more than 400,000 barrels of oil a day from Sudan -- more than 70 percent of the country's exports -- and helped build an oil pipeline. China has also reportedly canceled $100 million in debt owed by the Khartoum government and offered $20 million in no-interest loans to erect a new presidential palace. China also has used its veto at the U.N. Security Council to block efforts to impose sanctions on Sudan. An Amnesty International report said China and Russia were supplying weapons to the Arab militias, backed by President Omar el-Bashir's government, which have carried out the attacks in Darfur."

Sudan's Enablers "This funding came through our investments in companies such as Fidelity, which has major holdings in PetroChina and Sinopec -- two Chinese oil companies that have poured billions into Khartoum's coffers. At least 70% of Sudan's oil revenues have been used by Khartoum to purchase attack helicopters, Antonov bombers and small arms used to kill and inflict immeasurable suffering upon the population of Darfur."

China’s rise: Hope or doom for Africa? (III) "Amnesty International last month accused China of continuing to supply the Khartoum regime with arms in violation of an international embargo. Earlier this year the Chinese government even offered to increase military cooperation with Khartoum."

Can LeBron save Darfur? " For more than a year, Sudan has resisted U.N. attempts to post a peacekeeping force in Darfur, where more than 200,000 ethnic Africans have died since a 2003 uprising. The government has shrugged off diplomatic gestures, foreign divestment campaigns, economic sanctions and entreaties from celebrity activists including Mia Farrow and George Clooney. Sudan has reason to listen to China, which has invested billions in Sudan's oil industry, buys two-thirds of its oil and sells the Sudanese army the weapons that end up in the hands of the murderous militias. But China is reluctant to pressure Sudan, so the strategy now is to pressure China."

Why China Blocks Sanctions on Iran, Sudan, Burma "The People's Republic of China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and one of the world's prolific arms producers, continues to remain a major stumbling block to U.S. efforts to impose economic and military sanctions on three countries: Sudan, Burma (Myanmar) and Iran.

"The reasons are obvious," says a Southeast Asian diplomat who closely monitors the politics in the region. "Just as much as the United States and other Western powers protect their own political and military interests worldwide, so does China." With the threat of its veto power, China has expressed strong reservations over recent U.S. and Western attempts to either penalise or impose sanctions against Sudan, Burma and Iran for various political reasons. But the 15-member Security Council has been unable to take any action against any of the three countries because of opposition from China or Russia -- or both. "

"According to the AI study, more than 200 Chinese military trucks -- normally fitted with U.S. Cummins diesel engines -- were shipped to Sudan last August, despite a U.S. arms embargo on both countries, and the involvement of similar vehicles in the killing and abduction of civilians in the politically-troubled Darfur. The study, titled "China: Sustaining Conflict and Human Rights Abuses", also cites regular Chinese military shipments to Myanmar, including the supply in August 2005 of 400 military trucks to the Burmese army despite its involvement in the torture, killing and forced eviction of hundreds of thousands of civilians."

China urges patience on Sudan, opposes sanctions " "New sanctions against Sudan would only complicate the issue," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a regular news briefing. "China appeals to all parties to maintain restraint and patience." Beijing, which has veto power on the U.N. Security Council, is a major investor in Sudan's oil industry, sells Khartoum weapons and has invested heavily in its infrastructure. It also opposes sending U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur, where the United Nations estimates that fighting by government-linked militias and rebel groups has killed 200,000 people and forced 2 million more to flee their homes, without Khartoum's consent."

China, Russia bar Sudan sanctions "Russia and China say they will oppose UN sanctions against four Sudanese officials accused of involvement in continuing violence in Darfur. Russia's UN envoy said the Security Council should delay sanctions until Sudan's talks with Darfur rebels reach an African Union deadline of 30 April. The Chinese UN envoy also said the time was not right for the measures proposed by the UK and the US." "Russia and China have long opposed sanctions against Sudan. Both have strong trade links with Khartoum."

Bush Announces New Economic Sanctions on Sudan to Halt Darfur Crisis "The U.S. Mission to the United Nations has already drafted a resolution and plans to start discussing it with allies on Tuesday, a Security Council diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. But a U.S.-backed sanctions resolution is expected to face a tough time in the council, not only because of longstanding opposition from China which has strong commercial ties with Sudan but because of the timing."

Report Accuses China and Russia Of Arming Sudan "China and Russia are supplying arms to Sudan that are being used to fuel the violence in the Darfur region, in violation of a United Nations arms embargo, Amnesty International said in a report on Tuesday. "The irresponsible transfer of arms to Sudan and its neighbors are a significant factor in the massive human rights catastrophe in Darfur and its spread into eastern Chad," Amnesty International said. The report said "the bulk" of the arms were transferred from China and Russia, without giving specific figures. It added that Beijing and Moscow should have been aware that their military equipment was being used for attacks on civilians."

Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 02:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking comment on the racial aspect

Is this war about religion - ie Arab Muslim vs African Christian? Or is it Racial? Or is it about nomads vs agriculturalists? Or is it a dispute between different tribes? I am having difficulty figuring this out. If anyone out there can explain this, I would very much appreciate it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I must have done an awful job writing the background section to this article, if none of that is explained. It's most definitely not about religion - everyone involved is Muslim, though people keep confusing it with the Second Sudanese Civil War.

Here's the super-quick background - the region has historically hosted both agriculturalist and semi-nomadic populations. (I'm wincing at how oversimplified that statement is.) Some of the nomadic populations trace their origin to Arab populations who came south across the Sahara from Libya. Back when Sudan was a British-Egyptian colony, the colonial power poured all their investment into Khartoum, resulting in only a few northern tribes along the Nile becoming privileged. After independence, those tribes continued the pattern of inequality, beggaring the periphery. The most visible grievances are those of the south, which differ in both religion and culture, from the northern region. However, the Muslim west, east and center are also economically and politically marginalized. On a regional level, Ghaddafi decided that he was meant to create an "Arab belt" across the Sahel. As part of this he decided that all the nomadic peoples in Darfur were Arabs and his allies. (An Arab from the Arabian Peninsula would be incredulous at being lumped in with some of tribes mentioned.) So Ghadaffi sponsored the creation of "Arab" groups, gave them guns and a healthy dose of the ideology of Arab supremacy. You can actually trace the development of nomadic="Arab" and agriculturalist="African" to this point. Most of Ghaddafi's efforts were aimed at Chad with the support of Sudan, which resulted in the border region, aka Darfur, becoming rather filled with all manner of heavily armed groups with unfriendly philosophies. During the Darfur famine in the mid-1980s, some of the starving people got rather cranky with each other, resulting in the first real widespread nomadic-farmer violence. Darfur from the late 1980s was in a state of not-quite-peace, as the riverine tribes who controlled the government were willing to exacerbate tensions when it suited them but saw no benefit in establishing peace. See Daud Bolad for an early insurgent movement. The current rebellion stems from two impulses. The first, represented by the Sudan Liberation Movement, is from farming (="African") tribes who finally had enough of the murders, robberies and occasional massacres carried out by "Arab" Darfuris with the acquiescence (passive of not) of the government. The second, represented by the Justice and Equality Movement, is of disillusioned Islamists who had believed Hassan al-Turabi's promise to end the structural economic and political inequality in the country through sharia law, only to see their hopes dashed. (See The Black Book: Imbalance of Power and Wealth in the Sudan for more on the Darfuri Islamists.) The fact that the Islamists are better educated and more politically savvy than their country cousins, means that the comparatively small JEM has way better public relations that the SLA. Hopefully that helps with the big picture view. - BanyanTree 14:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Should this be included anywhere?

Perhaps one of the reasons that the UN has been so reluctant to get involved is due to Sudan's chokehold on the world of soda. Sudan has 70%-90% of the world's gum arabic/acadia exports. The gum is a base ingredient of basically every Coke product as well as Pepsi product. Perhaps this is why the United Nations has waited ever so patiently and watched this genocide go by, in fears that the host nation will cut off the world from the important base. Here are a couple of sources:

http://www.american.edu/TED/gumarab.htm

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:hkYISRBrjCIJ:www.americanbotanical.org/herbalgram/articleview.asp%3Fa%3D2770+sudan+gum+arabic&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us (pardon the highlights)

Should gum arabic be mentioned at all?

141.165.41.40 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem to explicitly mention Darfur (I only skimmed it though, I'm short on time right now). In order to include this in the article, you need a reliable source linking the gum arabic trade to the international response, otherwise its just original research. Damburger 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Chad-lake disappiered

• the war is going because of water? What is the main reason for this conflict?--Tamás Kádár 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Somebody: can you tell me the cause?!?--Tamás Kádár 15:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an almost desparate attempt to keep any mention of oil out of the discussion on all levels. If there was no oil I suspect we would have little interest in Darfur. I can't think of a place in the world where indigenous people are routinely slaughtered - and there are many - that has this type of emotion attached to it that doesn't have oil ( or something along that line attached to it ). Maybe there is such a place but I can't name one off the top of my head. 159.105.80.141 11:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am baffled by you point. I know I am interested in it because genocide is occurring and I think the more we publicize it the more likely it is to stop it. I am also horrified by the Armenian genocide and efforts to cover it up. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam are all taking leading roles in publicizing the Darfur conflict. They have no concern with the oil there. They oppose atrocities wherever they occur. They give the Bush Administration flack over the Iraq war and say it is violating human rights. During the cold war they heavily criticized the lack of human rights in the Soviet Union. The criticized Russia over Chechnya. They had a go at China over Tibet. They have publicized the lack Human rights in Brazil, as well as in Mexico and fought against Apartheid in South Africa. It just happens that Sudan right now is a major killer and violator of human rights right now. I cannot speak for governments (who knows exactly why they do what they do) but most people in the human rights community object to genocide wherever the see it. The same people and movements who took part in all the above protests are also protesting against genocide in Darfur. And just remember sometimes the USA does things for the sake of human rights too. Just look at the 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. They did it to protect the Kosovo Albanians. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The anon's comment is sophomoric and self-defeating. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that IP comes from a Vermont public library. I rest my case. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The above can take out some ads about American Indian reservations, East Timor, Indian caste system, S American Indians, etc etc but if they have any interest in these folks they certainly don't have several ads on national tv every day. It just looks suspicious that Darfur is of such interest to them - I am not even sure that the above groups are the ones financing the constant tv blitz anyway, are you?159.105.80.141 19:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo - unbeknownst to most of the West, Kosovo ( one area of it ) is setting on top of one of the world's richest mineral deposit ( rare and necessary stuff ). One piece of interesting trivia about Kosovo war - the Russians landed their troops right in the middle of this area and decided that they would protect all those mines from everyone - it's a standoff to this day I believe, they are still there protecting the lives of all that chromium and gold and platinum et al ( the Russians and the Wests compassion for the minerals is overwhelming.159.105.80.141 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide some sources for this information. Also are you saying that the only reason the West cared about Kosovo was because of its mineral deposits? Wouldnt these deposits go the highest bidder anyway so what difference would it make if Kosovo was independent? Custodiet ipsos custodes User talk:Custodiet ipsos custodes 19:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references

I noticed in the pop culture section of this article that Green Day's song WRT the conflict is included. I feel it is more important to include that it is included on an album full of songs intended to help the conflict...why does Green Day get a special mention but say, REM & U2 are not? Seems non inclusive enough to me... 65.103.210.249 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It might make sense to alter it to mention the most notable bands on the album (Instant Karma, which was released through Amnesty International). I think it is significant that their video includes interviews with Darfurians, but other songs/videos may well include similar features. ivan 07:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

The subsidiary page International response to the Darfur conflict is in dire need of updating and I can't do it alone. I would appreciate it if editors here could also take time to look at that article as well. Damburger 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this! This has been needed for a long time. In particular see my comment above about the two timelines. It makes sense to me to have the most important events on the main page, with everything else on the more comprehensive monthly timeline page. Is that what you're aiming to do as well? I'm not sure whether there should also be an emphasis on "timely" responses -- for instance, there has been a lot lately about the "Olympic Dream for Darfur" campaign pressuring China, although that is not as signficant over the course of the past four years. But the tendency seems to be to highlight current events, so maybe that emphasis makes sense. On another point, I think the "criticisms of criticisms" (or whatever to call that last paragraph) could be stronger. Mahmood Mamdani's column on Darfur[24], for instance, seems much more of a cogent criticism than the vague "statements to this effect in the Arab press" which are listed now. What do you think about foregrounding some of Mamdani's criticisms? ivan 04:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections and fixes myself. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed.

Need to be fixed:

• The lead should be condensed down some. Although the article is long in length it probably shouldn't go over four or five paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for more suggestions/guidelines. Also, the current last three paragraphs of the lead have no wikilinks at all and could probably be condensed into one paragraph.
• In the May 2007 section, consider rewording "Only the carrot and stick of Saudi aid to the UFDD may have forced the Chad government to the table.", changing "Only the carrot and stick" as it doesn't sound very encyclopedic and some readers may not understand what it means.
• The Spreading of violence section should be further expanded and include sources or be merged into another section.
• The information in the "In popular culture" section either should be removed (some are not really notable) and converted to prose and sourced. If you are not able to find sources for everything, just include what you can now and I'll pass it if an effort is made, but keep searching for sources.

For future improvement:

• In the October 2007 section, the lists should be converted to prose.
• Additionally, the sections titled by the month and year should be condensed together (maybe every three months) as some of the sections are not very long and shouldn't warrant a section.
• The inline citations should make use of the citation templates at WP:CITET.

The main reason the article is on hold is for the lead and the popular culture section. It should be relatively easy to adjust the lead and I'm sure the popular culture section can be whittled down and converted into prose. If you are not able to find sources for everything, just include what you can now and I'll pass it, but keep searching for sources. I will not delist the article based on the above issues, but they should be addressed so the article maintains its quality. I am going to leave the article on hold for the first four points to be addressed and when they are, I will pass the article. The "for future improvement" points are for continuing to expand the article and possibly heading off to FAC. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 08:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Pass

Since the above changes were not made, I fixed most of the needed ones myself. However, the other ones should still be fixed so the article continues to improve. I condensed the lead, removed the statement, and converted the list of popular culture to prose, removing a lot of the instances. I believe the article continues to meet the requirements of the GA criteria, and this article will maintain its GA status. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Keep improving the article, it could use a good cleanup along with the points I raised above. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 04:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• The lead needs a condensed outline of the cause of the conflict and the agendas and goals of the parties involved. It isn't very clear anywhere in the article either? Statistics and hard facts could possibly be moved to the central parts. MX44 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Steidle's photographs

I think some of Brian Steidle's photographs should be included in the article. I am about to include some of them in the Swedish article. I will contact Brian Steidle to get his permission. What do you think? Mårten Berglund (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I feature this article?

I really like this article but I am unsure how to nominate this article. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 17:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

American public support for intervention

A January 2007 report by the Council on Foreign Relations quotes a Zogby poll showing that 70% of Americans support a no-fly zone in Darfur; 62% claim the U.S. has responsibility to stop the killing, and 58% said that more diplomacy is needed. A 2005 survey showed that 71% of Americans support NATO and U.S. involvement in Sudan in terms of helping the African Union peacekeeping force. You can read the report here and decide if it can be used in this article or not. I wasn't sure if the above information was appropriate for this article or International response to the Darfur conflict so I've added it here if anyone thinks it is helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is quite long. Split?

This article is quite long. Suggest that we split it into Darfur conflict, with a succinct account of the situation, and History of the Darfur conflict, with details. Please comment. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

agree, but use timeline instead of history--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that idea as well. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

The article claims that the conflict began in 2003, but the articles I've seen written by experts usually push it back to at least the turn of the millenium. The chronology assembled by the Coalition for International justice (available http://www.sudanarchive.net/cgi-bin/sudan?e=-----1025-10-1-0-&a=d&cl=CL1.2.1&d=Dunepd258) starts in the early '90s, as does De Waal's "Counter-Insurgency on the Cheap". I think its important for the article, because the idea that the conflict is coterminous with the beginning of the rebellion is a misconception.X2i1x (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sumary desagrees with infobox

Witch side are SLM with ? Together with Janjaweed and Sudan's Army (as the infobox says) or with the other side together with JEM (as sumary says)? i'm not making retorical questions... i really don't know. i stoped by to read and got confused. ZeroA4 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

SLM/A is the rebel group who signed the Darfur Peace Agreement. They originally fought the GoS and now fight with the GoS against the JEM and other non-signatory rebel groups. 12.179.47.39 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

War in Darfur

I suggest renaming it to War in Darfur, the current name seems euphemistic to me. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. —Nightstallion 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, why don't we just move it, then? —Nightstallion 08:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No! It's a genocide people! The US government calls it a genocide, and I think Wikipedia should do the same! Rename it Darfur Genocide!!! --67.170.207.203 (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting a POV tag. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The UN has decided that the Civil War in Dafur is NOT genocide so for the sake of neutrality all references to genocide in the article should be removed. TractorBoys (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A neutral point of view is not necessarily the UN's point of view, to assume so would be silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.82.126 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere else it is called condominium

Why is it called co-dominium here? See Condominium (international law) JoshNarins (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oil

Its all about the oil! please research the role of oil in this conflict, i will soon hopefully.Chendy (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not only about oil, both race and religion play a part, but oil has upped the stakes and probably the death toll. Any RS's about oil and Darfur will be helpful. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion plays no part, they are all Muslims. Maybe you are thinking of the two Sudanese Civil Wars? JoshNarins (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they are all Muslims does not discount the role of religion in the violence. Violent clashes happen in the Muslim world all the time between different sects of the religion. Reference the Sunni/Shia violence within Iraq, or the influence of Wahabi practices on more moderate interpretations of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.2 (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of people blaming all major world conflicts on Oil. Please provide credible information next time, BEFORE you post. 72.81.33.192 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as America won't intervene because China gets most of it's oil from Sudan, I would guess it does play a big role in the fact that no one is intervening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.238.90 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This map is consistent with the other ones I've seen, the concession map of Sudan, and the Western Darfur region has no oil. JoshNarins (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, this Washington Post article suggests that China has said, because of its oil concessions, it will use its UN veto power to stop America from putting sanctions on Sudan. So, there are certainly allegations that some of the problem is oil related. Five Truths About Darfur JoshNarins (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If oil is an important issue, I hope the POV will be it is as important for the Chinese as it is for Americans. Here's an article from William Engdahl:

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Oil_in_Africa/oil_in_africa.html

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Prunier and promise to give Darfur to Libya

In Prunier's book (p. 53) it does say that al-Mahdi was planning to "deliver" Darfur to Libya, but it can't mean what it the article makes it sound like. The article makes it sound like the Darfur region would be part of the country of Libya, while more likely it was just going to be "delivered" as a place to a) stage Chadian rebels, and b) promote Arabic and Islam. Could someone look into this? JoshNarins (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

POV

i think the article pushes the limit of POV pretty hard. There is no mention that, just across the border in Chad, as the United Nations has said, are large numbers of Sudanese rebels. Both sides (Chad and Sudan) are engaged in helping rebel groups in the other country. Sure, al-Bashir is no saint, but do you think Deby is some sort of hero? See War in Chad (2005–present) for more details. Especially the section "Alleged foreign support for Sudanese rebels" which, although "alleged" includes this sentence: U.N. experts working in Darfur reported on January 9 that rebels were getting "financial, political and other material support from neighbouring countries including Libya, Chad and Eritrea". This also shows up in the somewhat too boring GoogleDarfur.com video number 1, where the UN employee driving in the film tells says that the armed people the filmmakers see are mostly Chadian military and Sudanese rebels (about 7:30 into it). JoshNarins (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)love

Another POV missing re the Darfur rebels is a) Who's arming them? Why is Russian arms dealer running guns in the region, Victor Bout, wanted by Interpol but allowed to operate out of US? See the Engdahl article cited above.

Also, the fact Darfur rebels have boycotted the UN peace conference is missing.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Darfur+rebel+boycott+UN+conference

Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Arabs

• It should be noted that the Sudanese Arabs are black themselves, and that they deny that the conflict has racial connotations.[[25] Funkynusayri (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A timeline of the darfur conflict.

I've put together a timeline of the Darfur conflict using wikipedia.

It's not perfect, but I think the result is an accurate representation of this topic and find it superior to other timelines I've seen around on wikipedia so far.. perhaps you and others will to.

This is my first time to do something to this extent on wikipedia, so I'm a little nervous. I recently read somewhere that 'you can't break wikipedia' so go ahead and post it, but I figured I'd check here in the discussion area to make sure there are not issues before I do so, considering the gravity of the darfur situation.

The timeline would be a nice visual summary for the topic and a helpful way for people to see the same information in a different way... any thoughts?

-BJ Heinley 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinley (talk • contribs) 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article needs Copyedit

Sorry for all my recent changes to the article. But several Dates were not properly formated. A full copyedit might be needed. One or more of the Ref links are outdated and need to be checked. (ref 36 for instance). It also seems that there has been quite a bit of vandalism by IPs recently so I also suggest a semi-protect. Spud ^Hai/_watidone 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused a little Can you clarify?

I am doing a reserch progect on the war/ genocide in Darfur. I need to classify who the vitimizers are verses the Victims. If anyone knows the answer to my question, in plain and simple terms would be appreciated, please let me know!! 74.9.45.166 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

SAD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.177.125 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply, all groups can be seen as victimizers and victims. The Darfur rebel groups fighting against the government (Justice and Equality Movement and Sudanese Liberation Army) initiate bloody attacks against police stations and government facilities, while at the same time being accused of raiding civillian villages for food. The Government of Sudan is also guilty of human rights abuses, as they give weapons, ammunition, and vehicles to the Janjaweed militia, which in turn terrorizes the people of Darfur through burning homes, killing livestock, raping women, and murdering men. The Sudanese Air Force also provides air support for the Janjaweed, including firing rockets at villages from helicopters and dropping bombs on them from airliners. It's a very complex situation, and I hope this simplified explanation helps. 75.50.118.172 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Confused!?

I am very confused on how this war started! if any one can tell me please email me at: *removed* Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.177.125 (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that the conflict in Darfur can be traced back to 1916, when the British government grouped Darfur (which was an independent sultanate up until this point) with Sudan. Throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, Darfur fell into neglect from the central Sudanese government in Khartoum, which was mostly composed of riverine "arabs" from the country's north. A group of Darfurians published a manuscript called the "Black Book" in 2000 that outlined the lack of wealith and public funding in Darfur compared to the rest of the country. There was also a 20 year civil war between the Muslim Islamic government in Khartoum and the Christian residents of Sudan's South. As the Civil War began to wind down amid U.S./UN sponsored peace talks in the early 2000s, the rebels in the south (Sudanese People's Liberation Army) began to organize another rebellion with disenchanted residents of Sudan's western region of Darfur. The current armed conflict in Darfur started on February 26, 2003, when a new group calling itself the Darfur Liberation Front (DLF) publicly claimed credit for an attack on Golo, the government military headquarters of Jebel Marra District. The attacks intensified, and the government responded by calling upon the nomadic "Arab" Janjaweed militia group they had used in the war against the south. That's basically how it started. For a more in-depth explanation, see the beginning of Timeline of the War in Darfur, and History of Darfur. - 75.50.118.172 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming this article

I was thinking about renaming this article as the Darfur Genocide. It is obvious that this is a genocide. As follows are a few research tidbits...

3. Genocide § "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Article 2 of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. § “and systematically murdered, tortured, and raped hundreds of thousands of Darfurians.” (savedarfur.org) § “killing 350,000 to 400,000 people in 29 months by means of violence, malnutrition, and disease in the first genocidal rampage of the 21st century.” (sudantribune.com) § “U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the actions of the Sudanese government and its proxies, the Jingaweit militias, against the people of Darfur to be genocide.” …"a consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities (killings, rapes, burning of villages) committed by Jingaweit and government forces against non-Arab villagers" from which "we concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the Jingaweit bear responsibility -- and genocide may still be occurring." (America.gov) § “and that Government forces and allied militia had committed widespread and consistent war crimes and crimes against humanity including murder, torture, mass rape, summary executions and arbitrary detention.” (wikipedia, from UN) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.24.179 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that it is Genocide there are many that dispute that fact and it is better to leave the title as is for now. A redirect of Darfur Genocide seems more appropriate at this time (as it is now).

While the human rights abuses in Darfur by the government are indeed atrocious, "genocide" has a very precise legal definition under the Genocide Convention of 1948. The question of genocide comes down to whether or not the Khartoum government intends to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." [26] Their actions appear to be a concerted effort (without regard for the lives of civillians) to break the back of an insurgency actively fighting to end their rule of the region, not neccesarily to eliminate Darfurians persé. The issue, however, is open to much debate. - 75.50.118.172 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the References

I'm trying to read the article, but the references are broken at 43.

I don't yet know how, but I'll come back and try to fix them when I do.

FairViewpoint (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Listing of China as a belligerent

The role of a belligerent is too narrow to include arms suppliers to either side with China supplying arms to the Sudanese government and it's associated militias. I'm not sure if this is vandalism or not. It would be overzealous to presume that without the involvement of it's own military, China is a belligerent in the conflict. By that extension, most of the developed world would be involved in every conflict in the world with them supplying arms sometimes to both sides. As mentioned in the article, China's oil companies are in Sudan and the government of China is doling out incentives to the government of Sudan so that they(the oil companies of china) get the oilfields. Thus I would suggest moving China's name to some other category like listing them under arms suppliers or something.Abhishekmathur (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with u. Russia is also listed to be a main arm supplier, and some figures showed there're more Russian weapons than Chinese. Also, many weapons are sold before the genocide, so it's unfair to blame the arm supplier when he didn't know what's for. Derekjoe (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Derekjoe

I added a reference to recent arms supply accusations with a solid reference to the BBC Panorama: China's Secret War. The reference is OK but could actually do with a better template which I couldn't find. Like when it was broadcast ( BBC1 N West 12:05am-12:35am (30 minutes) Fri 18 Jul ) and better links. I included a news article link because it's a perma link. The episode is on BBC iPlayer but only until Sunday. There may be a more permanent article on the Panorama webpage but I couldn't see it DJ Barney (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

China supplied them with trucks and is training some fighter pilots. Anything beyond that is unproven allegation. There is absolutely zero proof of China doing anything wrong here. Trucks and training of fighter pilots is not the same as supplying arms and claiming that China is somehow responsible for this is bull and anyone with a rational mind knows it. Laomei (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

genocide in first sentence

I have removed

(called the Darfur Genocide by the United States government (Transcript of BBC interview with President George W. Bush "Mr. Bush: ...You know, I read - did call it (SOUND GLITCH) genocide, and I think we're the only nation that has done so... "))

as it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. One could just as easily place in those brackets

(The UN has stated it is not genocide)

There is a further paragraph and half about the genocide in the lead where it belongs as an analysis of the events after the facts. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

fsadfa

I don't get why chinese people other than me get hyped up over criticisms of its involvement in Sudan, its not like these darfur guys are yelling free tibet which would be in chinese internal affairs. we should stay in east africa cuz thats the traditional sphere of influence for china —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.164.234 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a talk page to discuss improvements of this article, not your views on the matter. Please take your opinions to a blog or something. -- Reaper X 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Major/important battles

There an article about the JEM raid on the capital. Someone make also one on the early SLA attack on the airbase in 2003 and the more recent attack on the AU troops, and the template about Darfur battles. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page not locked? This topic is so controversil that it should not be allowed for just anyone to edit it. Madonna's page is locked fro Christ sake and this is not? It makes NO sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncsimko (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:International Criminal Court logo.svg

The image Image:International Criminal Court logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

hmmm

"Sudan's government claims that over 9,000 people have been killed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.155.201 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

SLM on the o

Please stop this! someone pls fix the war in darfur beligerents thing isnt the slm on the other side not with the retarted government and the janjweed

Please be more specific. Where in the article do you mean it's incorrect? Mårten Berglund (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

War in Darfur

AlRonnfeldt (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I really don't see why quotes from Ban Ki-moon and Noam Chomski are included in this section. The remarks are unsupported and highly speculative; the speakers higly biased. It looks like someone simply added them as a way to sneak political statements into a historical article.

I don't see how the UN General Secretary is biased. Noam Chomski I would agree. 20:41, 8 December 2008 (GMT)

DEATH

SO MUCH DEATH 158.59.247.84 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I APOLOGIZE 158.59.247.84 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic/tribal distinctions are not used consistently

In the intro section, the quote indicates that the factions appear to be of the same ethnic group, but are of different tribes. Later in the intro, the three groups under attack are indentified as ethnic groups. This is inconsistent. I don't know which is right, so I can't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.146.251 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Genocide

I disagree with the inclusion of "Genocides in history" under the "see also"-section. At present there is not enough reason to indicate that a genocide is taking place in Darfur, and to include that link is to imply a genocide is in fact taking place.

As far as I know, the United States is the only country to as of yet claim there is a genocide taking place. If this article wishes to be somewhat unbiased, it needs to base the facts from more multilateral sources. The United Nations has avoided using the tag, as mentioned in the artcile. And it is important to remember that International Law clearly states that a genocide is not a genocide until, amongst other things, a genocidal intent is present (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Art II, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Art 6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.245.31 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The conflict is widely thought to involve a genocide, and this ought to be noted a bit more obviously, given its notability as an alleged genocide among Americans and activists. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph

[snip] Unlike the Second Sudanese Civil War, the current lines of conflict are seen by some American reporters (such as those with USA Today and Slate magazine) to be ethnic and tribal, rather than religious. [reference: See Wikipedia entries on the Fur and Zaghawa as well as articles in USA Today, Slate and the New York Review of Books.] However, a United Nations report [reference: Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General (PDF), United Nations, 25 January 2005] states that the various tribes under attack (chiefly the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes) do not appear to have a distinct ethnicity from their attackers.

The divisions are seen by some American reporters as ethnic and tribal, rather than religious. However, the U.N. report says that the tribes under attack aren't ethnically distinct from their attackers. Pinpointing authorial intent is tricky, especially when the text has multiple authors, but the implication here seems to be this: a few American reporters might think that the conflict has no significant religious dimension, but they're wrong.

But read more than one sentence of the U.N. report (page 129):

Do members of the tribes victims of attacks and killing make up objectively a protected group?

The various tribes that have been the object of attacks and killings (chiefly the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa tribes) do not appear to make up ethnic groups distinct from the ethnic group to which persons or militias that attack them belong. They speak the same language (Arabic) and embrace the same religion (Muslim).¹⁸⁸ In addition, also due to the high measure of intermarriage, they can hardly be distinguished in their outward physical appearance from the members of tribes that allegedly attacked them. Furthermore, inter-marriage and coexistence in both social and economic terms, have over the years tended to blur the distinction between the groups. Apparently, the sedentary and nomadic character of the groups constitutes one of the main distinctions between them. It is also notable that members of the African tribes speak their own dialect in addition to Arabic, while members of Arab tribes only speak Arabic. [Footnote 188 refers to the section beginning on page 17.]

From this and the following sections, it becomes clear that while the U.N. report does disagree with the American reporters, it doesn't come to the opposite conclusion (which is what the use of however. . . implies); rather, it says that the line of division isn't even ethnic or tribal, but rather between different and incompatible modes of existence. (I don't know if there's a significant group of ignoramuses who think there's a significant religious element to the events. If so, probably their views should be covered somewhere, but not in the lead of this article.)

I know the lead is problematic, but I'm not sure how to fix it. The false dichotomy between "American reporters" and the U.N. needs to go, obviously. Maybe instead it should say that it's commonly portrayed as an ethnic/tribal conflict, while the U.N. report comes to more nuanced conclusions, which are: [the second paragraph of the lead would work here]. Thoughts? 71.248.115.187 (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[snip]There are many estimates of casualties. Reports of violent deaths compiled by the UN indicate between 6000 and 7000 fatalities from 2004 to 2007.[11] Some non-governmental organizations use 200,000 to more than 500,000; the latter is a figure from the Coalition for International Justice.[12] As many as 2.5 million are thought to have been displaced as of October 2006.[13] (see Mortality Figures section, below).[/snip]

I think this paragraph is highly misleading. There is confusion as to which deaths the 6,000-7,000 figure and 200,000-500,000 figure refer to. I've moved the "Reports of violent deaths ... 2004 to 2007" sentence to the 'Mortality Figures' section, as it gives the mistaken impression that the UN claims 6,000-7,000 people have been killed in the conflict as a whole (I know it doesn't say that, but that's the reading at a glance, and the 6,000-7,000 figure is too specific for an introductary section of the article).

87.192.246.247 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Pro-government paramilitary forces should not be called "Janjaweed"

This is like calling the U.S. military Nazis. Janjaweed means something like "marauding bandits" and is a term of great hatred and derision. How about calling them "pro-government paramilitary forces"? Of course, there are real janjaweed too, probably 'helping' both sides, but labeling all of one side janjaweed is amazingly biased.Haberstr (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Janjaweed are a nomadic tribe and are not a government force. They, calling themselves Janjaweed, not being labeled as such, were hired by the Sudanese government to assist in the genocide. The government provided the Janjaweed with funds and equipment in return. They are an Arab group who are completely merciless towards the civilians and rebels of Sudan, and are working fully for the government...as long as the government keeps supplying them. Although we use the word 'Janjaweed' to define the 'armed marauders' in Sudan and Chad, which ended up shaping the definition you mentioned, the term really meant "ghostly horsemen" which, again, is what they labeled themselves. No one gave them the name, and the definition did not change untill they became known for their actions. JAG92 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents Table?

Is it just me, or is the table on the right-hand side of the page incorrect? It states that the opposing force is the SLM vs JEM, when they are supposed to be on the same side. Looking at it again, the table is entirely unclear and it is difficult to ascertain any information about the warring factions from it. MC Dupree (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MC Dupree, the Belligerents table is completely muddled. SLM is against the Government, but have signed a peace agreement with the Government. They aren't fighting against JEM. And China is supporting the Sudanese Government not the rebels. I have updated the table as best I can. But would prefer someone who knows more about the situtation make sure it's correct --165.12.252.111 (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Refugee Situation

Is there an article on the refugee situation related to this war? The best I can find is this fairly out of the way section: Civil_war_in_Chad_(2005–present)#Internally_displaced_persons

I'm asking in part because I feel we need an article on the shocking refugee situation in Sri Lanka. ([27], [28]) Does anyone know of a WP precedent for such topics? MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I just found this: Great Lakes refugee crisis. Would Darfur-Chad refugee crisis or Sri Lankan refugee crisis be appropriate articles? MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

War over according to UN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8224424.stm

Now just low-level inter-clan violence and banditry.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the war is in fact labeled as 'over', but the low-level inter-clan violence and banditry that has been named in its place is constantly rising, and many, if not all, Sudanese officials involved in the war crimes are still at large. In fact, a few weeks ago, the "Save Darfur Coalition" published this statement. "Violence in South Sudan has sky-rocketed. Just last week, new brutal ethnic violence killed at least 185 in the southern Jonglei State." So although the war is over, a new one could still very well spark-up, and the same (albiet less frequent) slaughtering of innocents seen during the war is still occuring today. JAG92 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop using newspapers as sources

Use reliable source like UN reports or other recognized non-profit or non government organizations sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerain (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

non-profit or non government organizations sources as not necessarily neural sources, given most have a particular agenda in the contry whilst independent news sources such as the BBC do not 81.96.246.118 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BBC is not really what I would call a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerain (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link

Citation 10, regarding Khartoum's accused involvement in the genocide, is broken.

-DylanC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.20.105 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why there's nothing about the actual WAR here?

I just worked on 2008 attack on Omdurman and Khartoum and it's not even mentioned here! --83.13.135.170 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Make an article about "Darfur genocide" on something and write about the WAR in the article titled "War"! --83.13.135.170 (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Third belligerent category

I don't think that there should be a third column of Belligerents including the United Nations and African Union. Those supranational organizations aren't waging war in Darfur, and there can be no literal victory where the UN and AU "win" the conflict. They are peacekeeping forces, not military expedition forces. --Tryittoday11 (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Page name

So, what shall it be called: "War in Darfur" or "Darfur Conflict"? Currently, the former names the page, while the latter opens the lead section. The page title and the WP:BOLDTITLE should be as identical as possible. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I searched for "Darfur Conflict" before ending up here, and I believe that's the way I have heard people addressing the war most often. However, as there is a redirect, I don't care too much about the name of the page. --Tilmanb (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There's oil in Darfur?

There's a feeling that this war is linked to oil. Even so, the Sudanese oil is in the south, not in Darfur. Does someone knows anything about petroleum's geology of Darfur?Agre22 (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Darfur does have oil However oil is not the cause of the conflict in Darfur or for the displacement of populations. Political grievances linked to the North - South Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 are at the center of the reason for the rebellion agains the government.

The largest field in Darfur is Block 6, where Chevron first found oil in 1979. This concession straddles Kordofan and South Darfur and was awarded to Sudan’s largest oil partner, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), in November 1995. Early in the conflict in Darfur, CNPC relinguished most of the section of Block 6 inside Darfur to a group of smaller companies. The area in Darfur is now called Block 17, but it is inactive. The licensed operator in Block 17 is a small Yemeni company, Ansan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdman64 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone says that oil is not linked to the darfur genocide doen't know what they are talking about. The goverment wants the people of Darfur out of the way so they can dig for the oil and he didnt have to pay the people for the rights of the land where they lived. want any more evidence? look up the documentary of Brian Steidle 'The Devil Came on Horseback' and research the topic. 173.210.204.174 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Peace Treaty Signed

CNN.com is reporting that a peace treaty has been signed so the war is over. 71.191.3.64 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish that would be the case, but it's not.Scarlettsony (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that on a page dedicated to the war in Darfur the first papragraph is about media controversy. The lead is far to long and needs to be condened with much of the information put into the body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.195.170 (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Causes?

Uh this article is totally unclear on what the causes are. Drought? It needs a further explanation. 17:51 April 2, 2009. isprawl

In 1989, General Omar Bashir took control of Sudan by military coup, which then allowed The National Islamic Front government to inflame regional tensions. In a struggle for political control of the area, weapons poured into Darfur. Conflicts increased between African farmers and many nomadic Arab tribes.In 2003, two Darfuri rebel movements- the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)- took up arms against the Sudanese government, complaining about the marginalization of the area and the failure to protect sedentary people from attacks by nomads. The government of Sudan responded by unleashing Arab militias known as Janjaweed, or “devils on horseback”. Sudanese forces and Janjaweed militia attacked hundreds of villages throughout Darfur. That pretty much explains the causes.Rakunited14 (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Peacekeeping

This article is atrocious overall. It is badly written and provide a muddy picture of things. One of the main missing components is about peacekeeping. There is little to no information about the African Union or UN peacekeeping efforts, which are a central aspect of the international response to the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.20.169 (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all a good article

This is in no way a good article. The current version is absolutely terrible. Can it be rolled back to the good article version? If not, can good article status be removed? How do you do either? 74.110.20.169 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This older revision of War in Darfur from late 2006 is maybe better? You can request a review of the Good Article status as well. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Media controversy? blog sources

What is that blog posting POV doing on wikipefia with unreliable sources such as a blog? And what and where does this source say exactly? War_in_Darfur#cite_note-39?Zulu dar (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just added - 'Peace efforts' section

I just added 'peace efforts' as I think this is an important section to be included.Zulu dar (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Section needed to deal with Genocide issue

Genocide or not genocide I think needs a separate section--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Talk:War in Darfur/Archive 1/GA1

Terrible.

This article has so many black holes in it you could suck up an entire universe. There needs to be experts to edit this or change the article back to a more reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.64.32 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Background NPOV Disputed

The Background Section is extremely biased, uses inflammatory words, uses solely one-sided quotes that label the conflict as a genocide, the doers of the atrocity as the Arabs, revolves around Arab racism, ethnic cleansing, meantions a free-people versus non-people slave africans, etc. All of these points are harshly rejected by Harvard Professor Alex de Waal, as well as Gérard Prunier. In de Waal's "War In Darfur", the shamelessness of such way of thought is outlined and criticized. Check out a review of War In Darfur for a general gist of the whole thing. Eyas (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Want more info?

Navigate to the Southern Sudanese Indep. Referendum, 2011 wiki entry. I updated the "Issues" section, please check it out and let me know what you think - feedback feedback feedback!! Use the discussion tab :) Check out Southern Sudanese Independence Referendum, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsalih1 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Terrible!

I came to write about how terribly written the article is and I guess you already pointed it out. It IS terrible, in both the quality of information and the usage of language in it, but mostly it gives a very impartial viewpoint on the conflict. "A Nazi like group"... and yes, it's FULL of black holes.

I would have expected an article of such centrality to human rights violations in the world and the politics of a whole country as this one to be proofread by many very qualified people. How come NOBODY is fixing this things? I can't do it myself, really, as I'm not an expert in the subject, but when you see that it's an article as central as this one and especially after it links almost directly to Wikipedia's front page (10/1/11) (there is a link to Southern Sudan in the news section of the front page today) then you really ask yourself how we can be so backwards here in Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.22.101 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Kotniski (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

---

War in Darfur → Proposed new name: Genocide in Darfur — Reason for move: The current title "War in Darfur" is not true and is misleading. A genocide is occurring in Darfur that has claimed 400,000 lives and has misplaced over 2 and a half million people, according to numerous sources online. A war is different than a genocide. The definition of war is the waging of armed conflict against an enemy. The definition of genocide is the systematic killing of a racial or cultural group, which is occurring in Darfur. Monalisasmiles4you (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Calling it a genocide is POV. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unlike FunkMonk, I don't think employing the term genocide is POV. The term Darfur genocide is a widely employed term amongst reliable sources [29][30]. However, the armed conflict and the genocide are separate topics deserving of each being an article. The conflict was not entirely a genocide event but there is no doubt that genocide was one of the tactics of war.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the previous comment is correct on every count. Knepflerle (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The genocide is just one aspect of the war. Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose but recognising that there is a lot of potential to expand the article, including the possibility of a section specifically on the genocide. The proposer might find it productive to work on a subsection specifically on the genocide that could in future be spun out into a separate article once it has matured. This would be a great way for you to imporve wikipedia's coverage in an area you care about. Ajbpearce (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

False "Black vs. Arab" dichotomy

This article really needs to be careful in not reflecting a particular brand of anti-Arab propaganda which identifies the conflict as some kind of race-war between black Africans and non-native Arabs. This is false, since the Sudanese Arabs are native blacks as well, but are simply culturally arabized, though also mixed with Arabs to some extend (black and Arab are not mutually exclusive terms). This is a cultural conflict, not racial. So please, keep that shit out of here. FunkMonk (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Link Broken

Link number thirty is broken. You can find it by searching "Sudan "cleansed" of non-Arabs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.231.198 (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sentence needs rewrite.

Can someone clean up this section of the North/South divide? It makes no sense right now..

"The New York Times (15 May 2004) said that many of the racist attitudes traditionally directed toward slaves have been redirected to the sedentary Arab [25] racist ideology plays an important part of the genocide, the sharp distinctions between Arabs and Africans in the racially mixed Darfur region had not been drawn (as much) until the ideology of pan-Arabism that came out of the Libya made itself felt. Some of the nomadic sheiks of the region came to see themselves as the avatars of Arabism, the authentic representatives of their Bedouin origins." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.40.186 (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC) ♥₴♥ I really can not find enough information as the players involved in this sisuation are non-identified, they seem to be key issues for the fingting that has occured that are not being accuratly reported, the terms and usage of rebel, racisit, genocide. There are smaller aspects involved, the usage of maps-regions. Seems there are players of people involved groups that all have a say and views involved, the historic factors involved,skirmishes, battles, where and when genocide has occured.♥₴♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIGGSofWAR (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How about we call it what it is?

It's a GENOCIDE, not a 'conflict' or 'humanitarian catastrophe.' Gosh this makes me mad that we don't do anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That you're talking in terms of how angry you are inherently shows that your suggestion is loaded with a non-neutral POV. Get over yourself. The article is pretty clear which side of the conflict has suffered and is suffering for it. 24.5.205.180 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Title discontinuity

So, why does the lead use "Darfur Conflict" and "Conflict in Darfur" while the article title is "War in Darfur"? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Spurious "anti oil revenue" content in opening paragraph

Don't have any axe to grind for/against use of oil revenue by Sudanese government, just wondering why we let someone with an axe to grind insert content in the opening paragraph that clearly doesn't belong there. Recommend this entire section be deleted or moved to a separate section elsewhere in the article. If we're going to discuss war funding we should address where all parties are getting their funding? Also, most of these African countries seem to fund their wars whether they have oil revenue or not, no?

"The Sudanese government uses oil revenues to fund a military capacity that is in turn, used to conduct war in Darfur. Oil revenues collected from companies around the world fund the civil war as well as violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Sudan’s oil wealth has played a major part in enabling an otherwise poor government to fund the expensive bombers, helicopters and arms supplies which have allowed the Sudanese government to launch aerial attacks on towns and villages and fund militias to fight its proxy war in Darfur.[18]"

Alternatively, we could shorten this to one sentence. Again, trying to figure why someone was allowed to insert this politically motivated content very early into an otherwise well-written overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allaheadfull (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

DISCUSSION PAGE:

Despite the above admonition, the is the discussion page of the main article where it is appropriate to DISCUSS the topic and if including information in the main page is valid. THEREFORE, despite those who would discourage discussion for personal or political reasons, Wiki is a forum where the majority should be able to over rule those who would like this subject to go away for religious, political or personal reasons. --24.23.32.57 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please Add these

First Of all, all Darfurian whether Arab or Arabized Black African are Muslims. The largest tribes in Darfur are Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit about 91% of total population, many of them are arabized in a cultural sense of the word. ethnic Arab and Bedouin (Abbala) is a minority in Darfur region , about 280,000 of the total population.The conflict has started as early as late 70S, when some outlaws were targeting the livestock merchants (mostly are ethnic Arab) , and used to attack markets, banks, civilians and nomads, beside many acts of rubbery and riots. And because the Sudanese army was exhausted in north south war , The Sudanese government decided to give the head (Sheikhs) of these tribes , firearms and bullets to protect their selves and their businesses. specially it's very hard task to protect those nomads while they travel very long distance, from Darfur as far as Libya and Egypt desert (Jabel Elba) , Chad and center of Sudan to trade and sell their livestock . In 2000 the Zaghawa rebels supported by colonel Qaddafi and Chadians (comprise ethnic Zaghawa including President Eddris Debbe) were plotting to overthrown the Sudanese government and centralize the power in the hand of those racist Zaghawa rebel leaders, Eventually the original inhabited of the region (Fur) joined the governments and the other tribes to fight these racist outlaws and rebels, so it's not a racially conflict between ethnic Arab Vs Black African as the press tried to reflect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.59.83.139 (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction template

You can read the first two subsections of the Timeline section. All sources can get some mention potentially but predominance needs to be taken into account. Most importantly, the article should not state one thing (even with a source) then be followed with multiple other sources saying otherwise. Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflicted not ended

The article suggests that military action is over, however this amnesty report (2012) strongly suggests otherwise: Most of the towns/villages mentioned in the report don't have wikipedia pages... try visiting http://www.ushmm.org/maps/ for more info http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/control-arms/reports/sudan-no-end-to-violence-in-darfur-arms-supplies-continue-despite-ongoing-human-rights-violations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Independent referendum

When will Independent referendum?--Kaiyr (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)