Wikipedia

Talk:War in Darfur/Archive 2

< Talk:War in Darfur
Latest comment: 7 years ago by GeneralAdmiralAladeen in topic Notice to editors regarding moving this page

"muthafucka jones" ?

What's up with the sub-section title? I was going to edit it myself but I didn't know if by any chance it actually was supposed to be there. I am surprised it is there considering Wikipedia monitoring. Any thoughts? Comments welcomed. Qolivieri 9 January 2013

External links

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have just removed the following linkspam from the article as they violate WP:ELNO. They are preserved here as they may be useful as citations for the article. Please do not reinsert these except as citations. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 18:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I could tell by the middle of the second paragraph that this representation possessed a tilt in one party's favor. Wrong or right is subjective and should be kept to a minimum when presenting information that should be taken as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.44.80 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I recently changed the word "conflict" to "genocide" in multiple, but not all, areas. Between Sudan and Chad, I left the word "conflict", however in areas of ethnic and/or religious 'cleansing' the word was changed to "genocide". We must not sacrifice the neutrality of this document to support court outcomes. The Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster both document the definition of "genocide" in having to due with the targeting of a particular group with the intent of extinction. "Conflict", on the other hand, is noted as a "struggle" between two opposing parties. There are no documented reports of unified response from the targeted groups other than in self-defense. The Rwanda Genocide did have documented reports of armed responses by both parties, so it was a conflict, however due to the responses not being in self-defense, but in targeting of the opposing group with the intention of extinction, by definition the word "genocide" was used. Any organic search done by one of the three major search engines will show multiple reputable sources that use the word "genocide" with regards to this subject. The only reason someone would use the word "conflict", which is by definition the wrong word, as opposed to "genocide", which is by definition the only correct word, would be biased with regards to one side. If this very important document and "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia" is to be taken seriously among other reputable Encyclopedia's and sources, proper definitions must be used above and beyond opinions. If a wrongful death is documented, for example, it should be written, "...the innocent ______ was found guilty by the ________ court", because if the person is by definition "innocent" it cannot be written "guilty" to support a court verdict, likewise, regardless of what international courts are saying (they usually are biased for economic, resource and/or other reasons), it must be noted by definition. By definition this is a genocide and not a conflict as noted by the following sources:
    - United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell ~ www.genocidewatch.org
    - William Schabas (2000), Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England 2000)  200.
    - The New York Times, "The Genocide in Darfur" Nov. 6, 2006
    - Holocaust Museum Houston
    - Encyclopaedia Britannica
    - Oxford English Dictionary
    - United Human Rights Council
    - The Nation.com
    - Eric Reeves, “Darfur: Genocide Before Our Eyes,” in Apsel, ed. Darfur: Genocide Before Our Eyes, Institute for the Study of Genocide, 2005, p. 28
    - Multiple more  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.17.223 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I very much doubt that the OED has anything whatsoever discounting the phrasing "Darfur Conflict" or "Crisis" in favor of "genocide". What you actually mean is that this conflict meets their definition of a genocide... and that is some people's POV. Others would say it "obviously" doesn't meet those definitions because the Nubian/Arab Sudanese are not trying to eradicate black Sudanese in toto and that attempts to label a domestic conflict genocide is just members of the international community trying to shove this square peg through the round hole they drilled following the Nuremberg Trials.
If you want to preach to anyone but the choir, you need to realize the generic dictionary definitions (OED, e.g.) have no legal force. Genocide is a crime defined under international law and you've got to work with that definition when discussing a case like this. Then you need to list those people (Reeves, e.g.) who actually lay out the arguments that this specific case rises to the level of meeting that definition. You can do that here or start a new page specifically on the genocidal components of this conflict, but that doesn't change the ENGLISH COMMONNAME of the conflict itself, which isn't "genocide". Even once that's done, NPOV specifically requires that you explain the other side and why they don't think this rises to the level of genocide.
Regarding your general tone ("if Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia is to be taken seriously by me"), see WRONGVERSION. — LlywelynII 02:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Move to Darfur Crisis

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There was a clear consensus against the original proposed move, which is sufficient reason to close this discussion. After nearly two months, there was no consensus formed in favor of any alternative proposal either. It appears possible that a future proposal for Darfur War might succeed; but, that possibilty was not the subject of enough discussion here to form a consensus. Xoloz (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


War in Darfur → Darfur Crisis – What this conflict has always actually been—given the annexation of formerly-independent Darfur by the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan during WWI and initiation of hostilities by the rebels—is the "Darfur Rebellion" or "Revolt"; if it were considered a civil war, the name would be the "Sudan" or "Sudanese Civil War". The first two simply aren't in common use and the latter two are used to describe the conflict that led to South Sudan.

As editor Tilmanb already noted, this conflict's ENGLISH COMMONNAME is the "Darfur Crisis" or "Crisis in Darfur". Google ngram backs it up and it's not even close. Google scholar similarly prefers "Darfur Crisis" to "War in Darfur" by a 2:1 margin. (The looser phrasing "crisis in Darfur" is 50% more common (but includes generic references); the stricter phrasing "Darfur War" is four times even less common or ~8 times less common than "Darfur Crisis".)

The existing discussion on this was minimal. TheFEARgod and Nightstallion felt the existing name was "euphemistic" and moved it. If the common name were "genocide", we'd have to tread carefully and balance our sources with the strength of the accusation to make sure it was justified. Ignoring our sources, on the other hand, in order to strengthen their phrasing is the very definition of POV. (Fwiw, the page may have been "Darfur Conflict" at that point... that wasn't the best name, but the current one isn't either.) Given the poor reasoning behind the existing name and the vastly greater English-language use of "Darfur Crisis", let's move this to where everyone is already looking for it. --Relisted. walk victor falk talk 02:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)--Relisted. walk victor falk talk 05:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)  — LlywelynII 02:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

edit: For anyone unhappy with the present name because they want to strengthen it even more, see here for the existing consensus not to move to "genocide".  — LlywelynII 01:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, Support move to Darfur genocide, Neutral move to Darfur War If we were really to pick the most common name it would be Darfur genocide or Genocide in Darfur. "Genocide in Darfur" 3,050 hits[1] and "Darfur genocide" 1,020 hits. For this topic, the ngram wont be of much help as it goes no more contemporary that 2008. Google books from 2010 onward provide the following: "genocide in darfur" 3,670 hits[2], "darfur genocide" 2880 hits[3],"darfur crisis" 3,260 hits [4]. Calling it a genocide seems to win out when you combine the variations of that title. that being said, my personal preference would be separate articles for the genocide and the war (ex: Rwandan Civil War and Rwandan Genocide) but since there has been no progress in that respect since the last RM a move to genocide seems not out of place.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "War" is a pragmatic usage. I am not convinced there is a commonname for the issue and think looking for one will not help us figure this out. Lexis searches showed that "genocide" and variants are the most common (approx 2:1 ratio "genocide" to "crisis"), "crisis" and variants are second (approx 2:1 "crisis" to "war"), and "war" and variants are third most used. Here's some examples (I tested all variants in multiple source, but for ease I'm only reporting one variant for each source): New York Times usage: "war in Darfur" 47, "crisis in Darfur" 110, "genocide in Darfur" 204. Washington Post usage: "Darfur war" 15, "Darfur crisis" 73, "Darfur genocide" 110. The Times of London: "war in Darfur" 13, "crisis in Darfur" 41, "genocide in Darfur" 48. (For two others: Christian Science Monitor, war 19, crisis 25, genocide 48 and The Australian, war 10, crisis 19, genocide 51). Note: Lexis searches are not case sensitive. There does not appear to be a commonname for the topic and if there is, it is not "crisis". So then we have to turn to what is the best term for the topic, which is a much harder question. When one usage is very euphemistic and another is very, very weighty--I think a pragmatic case can be made to cut the middle between them and go with "War in Darfur." A pragmatic split is often the smartest option on topics without a commonname. "Darfur war" or "War in Darfur" are best. "Darfur genocide" is second best. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, walk victor falk talk 05:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move to Darfur conflict per the following:

  • I would agree with TheFEARgod and Nightstallion that "crisis" is euphemistic: when used by sources, it is to cover its ramifications beyond the fighting itself as covered by the article, e.g. its consequences to the Sudanese government or neighbouring countries and misleading when applied to the level of combat involved described by the article. (I also object strongly to the capitalisation of "Crisis", as it implies as commonly agreed name by wp:rs and wp:v sources instead of a simply wp:ndesc title)
  • "Conflict" is the better descriptor, as show by how the nominator uses it in the nomination itself "What this conflict has always actually been [...]" (emphasis added)
  • It is a wp:commonname, close behind "crisis" as show by ngram [5], and Google book hits (4500 vs 5000), while being equal in Google Scholar with 2800 hits for "Darfur conflict" and "Darfur crisis" both.
  • While I agree "war" could be used truthfully, it is a low-level war in terms of military operations that makes it dubious if it requires the article to be called that (the very high number of excess deaths is not due to direct hostilities). "Conflict" is in line with what those types are titled on wikipedia, see Sudan–SRF conflict, Kivu Conflict, Conflict in the Niger Delta, Western Sahara conflict, Casamance conflict for illustrative examples of similar types of situations.
  • Support move to Darfur conflict, as nom. walk victor falk talk 05:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move to Darfur conflict or Darfur Crisis as this is what I've always heard the situation called. Never a war, but certainly a crisis or conflict. Stratocaster27t@lk 22:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose to any move and strong oppose the original suggestion - it's a war zone Red Slash 20:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
As I say in my proposal, there is no doubt that "war could be used truthfully", it's just that it is conventional, both by wikipedia and generally by wp:rs and wp:v sources to usually use "conflict" to distinguish between irregular warfare and conventional warfare. walk victor falk talk 23:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
"Conflict" just sounds so... weak. Take the war in Iraq. Would we ever use the term "conflict in Iraq" to describe everything since 2004-ish? I mean, you could, but we don't. But your point is well taken. "War in Darfur" just sounds like the best title to me--clear, concise (enough), neutral, specific, and eminently natural and recognizable. But you make good points, so I'll only "mild" oppose this. I really dislike the original proposal, though (nothing personal though!!). If my toilet is clogged up for a week, that's a crisis. This article talks about war. Red Slash 03:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from; the word in common speech is about "NN is in a conflict with his employer about foo", but here it is used with specific criteria in mind by wp:sources. A bit like "theory" in common speech means a lot of different stuff between "I've thought long and hard about this and what I think is" to "some random wild-ass guess", but it means something quite specific in a scholarly context. The problem sounding euphemistic is handled by wp:povname. I don't think Iraq is a good analogy, the conflicts (see how the word include different kind of "wars") were of a different nature; the best way to think about those things is to imagine what they will call it in the future; to my mind there never was any doubt it would be known as the "Iraq War" to future generations. Any reluctance to do so had with political considerations to do, which is shown by non-US sources being much more prone and earlier to call it "war". I think what is most wrong with this title is the "war in geographical foo" format (both on wiki & the real world). It's a circumlocution allowing people a way of being euphemistic while sounding like they're not. See this move request (Talk:World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia#Requested_move) about the finer subtleties of "in". Call a spade a spade, i.e. "Foo war". walk victor falk talk 18:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, walk victor falk talk 02:44, 15 June 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2015 - ongoing

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article [6] suggests that the Janjaweed militias are cutting a fresh swathe of destruction even now, I've just come fresh to the subject, so I don't know if someone is able to expand anything in the article based on it? EdwardLane (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on War in Darfur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on War in Darfur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Themidget17 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on War in Darfur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

follow me at : karlawat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:4100:1330:74:3A:7B9F:34 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to editors regarding moving this page

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been disputed in the past what to appropriately name this page, supporters and opposers of the move referencing possible names such as Darfur crisis, Genocide in Darfur, and Ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Because editors and people outside of Wikipedia have in the past, and continue to dispute what is the best name to give for the conflict/genocide in Darfur, editors (on Wikipedia) that wish to move this page should request a move and start a discussion on it, to gather support for a move of this magnitude. Please refrain from moving this page on your own good faith, as your move could create unattended dispute.

For more information, see Wikipedia's policy regarding article titles.

- GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 18:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Darfur/Archive_2&oldid=1150600568"