Talk:War in Darfur/Archive 1

message: I read the piece at the Wall Street Journal today . I heard Terry Gross' coverage, featuring Capt. Brian Steidle, eariler this week . I am outraged. I had hoped that the U.K. would step in , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  original comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks! - Mustafaa 08:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Arab vs. Black 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Just a little point 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oil? 

message: “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)
thread_title:  From [[Muhammad|the Prophet]]'s Farewell Speech 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, an italian newspaper published today  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)
thread_title:  Color in Sudan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Updated death toll to over 300,000 

message: 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)
thread_title:  51 unknowns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Death Toll 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  June and July 2005 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Genocide or not? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikiquote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New related article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Someone brought this up last year, but... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sudan Chad War 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UN Spec. Adviser on Genocide 

message: "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)
thread_title:  What the... 

message: I see no January in the timeline. Did really nothing at all happen in Darfur during January? DanielDemaret 12:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No March either.  -Scottwiki 06:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And no April.  -Scottwiki 10:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...therefore, I've added section stubs for the missing months.  -Scottwiki 19:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2006 in the timeline of the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Democide numbers? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done! Fsotrain09 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  um 

message: '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)
thread_title:  British response? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2 million killed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Tuesday" time reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: The above copied to Talk:Darfur_conflict/to_do. __meco 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main points of the deal" 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  14 june 06 ICC report 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I smell an edit war... 

message: "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
#archive the page at regular intervals, and
#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)
thread_title:  Library of congress 

message: :This text moved from top of page and attributed under new section. - BT 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congress, State, Bush (2004), ,  and then again (2006). 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "the God-damned, non academic Wikipedia" 

message: :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)
thread_title:  good article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Barack Obama 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleted 

message: Is there anything an average American civilian can do to aide the peackeeping efforts? -69.67.234.48 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of advocacy organizations doing Darfur work listed at Bibliography of the Darfur conflict.  - BT 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Reports of slavery 

message: The Sudanese government has signed a peace deal with the eastern rebels.
—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)
thread_title:  What about this? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sudanese Support for the Janjaweed 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with ivan.Hypnosadist 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately,  poses some technical limitations. This did remind me to update the AMIS entry upto 2006. El_C 13:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible to use the "notes" parameter to the  template. Mårten Berglund 15:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to [[African Union Mission in Sudan]]? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Featured Article Nomination? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia and rated Good article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sudan Divestment? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  African Union and the UN 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Subsequent edits were definitely vandalism and I've reverted the lot. - BanyanTree 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this vandalism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links go on the bibliography page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confused about the multiple timelines in this section 

message: Calling it a conflict instead of a genoside is downplaying the event.--Sefringle 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Move to [[Darfur Genocide]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification in "Unleashing the Janjaweed" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The ICC has laid charges 

message: the war is going because of water or just for the relegion?--Tamás Kádár 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chad-lake is desert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Google Earth]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The conflict is between the militia group and who? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SLM/Minnawi 

message: And the french south african egypt arms trades ，--Ksyrie 18:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check out the [[Rwandan Civil War]] 

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

text: Again,originally from China doesnt' mean China is violating the arms embargo.--Ksyrie 12:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense dictates that there is a good chance China was involved. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense....Men are intelligent to use common sense.--Ksyrie 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Someone can check the Amnesty International Report? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Denying the genocide... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  News Sources talking about Chinese Involvement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should this be included anywhere? 

message: * the war is going because of water? What is the main reason for this conflict?--Tamás Kádár 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The anon's comment is sophomoric and self-defeating. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that IP comes from a Vermont public library. I rest my case. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Chad]]-lake disappiered 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pop culture references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, 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)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps Review: On Hold 

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Pass

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brian Steidle's photographs 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  American public support for intervention 

message: 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)
replies: text: agree, but use timeline instead of history--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that idea as well. (Hypnosadist) 14:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks very good to me. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is quite long. Split? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sumary desagrees with infobox 

message: I suggest renaming it to War in Darfur, the current name seems euphemistic to me. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. —Nightstallion 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Oil 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prunier and promise to give Darfur to Libya 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  A timeline of the darfur conflict. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article needs Copyedit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confused a little Can you clarify? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confused!? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please fix the References 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Listing of China as a belligerent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  genocide in first sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  fsadfa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major/important battles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:International Criminal Court logo.svg 

message: "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)
thread_title:  hmmm 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SLM on the o 

message: AlRonnfeldt (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War in Darfur 

message: SO MUCH DEATH 158.59.247.84 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I APOLOGIZE 158.59.247.84 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEATH 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ethnic/tribal distinctions are not used consistently 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Genocide 

message: :[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)
thread_title:  The opening paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pro-government paramilitary forces should not be called "Janjaweed" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Belligerents Table? 

message: 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. (, )  Does anyone know of a WP precedent for such topics?  MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Refugee Situation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  War over according to UN 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stop using newspapers as sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why there's nothing about the actual WAR here? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Third belligerent category 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  There's oil in Darfur? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peace Treaty Signed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Causes? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peacekeeping 

message: 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)
replies: text: This  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)
thread_title:  Not at all a good article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Media controversy? blog sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just added - 'Peace efforts' section 

message: Genocide or not genocide I think needs a separate section--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section needed to deal with Genocide issue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terrible. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Background NPOV Disputed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Want more info? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yes, Terrible! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  False "Black vs. Arab" dichotomy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link Broken 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sentence needs rewrite. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How about we call it what it is? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title discontinuity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spurious "anti oil revenue" content in opening paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  DISCUSSION PAGE: 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please Add these 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflicted not ended 

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