Talk:Chadian Civil War (2005–2010)

message: Chad-Sudan conflict → Chad-Sudan War – disputed over whether or not some military action makes this a war — Wikizach 02:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
===Support===
1. Support As many of you know, I am out here in Chad. From all that I have learned here and from researching what the declaration Chad made to Sudan, I can say that 'war' is a very resonable word. Wikizach 02:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Comment more than 20% of the Chadian army is an elaborate accounting fraud. - Stlemur 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly do you mean? Even if this is true, wouldn't that even make this conflict more significant? -- Natalinasmpf 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 1. Support As many of you know, I am out here in Chad. From all that I have learned here and from researching what the declaration Chad made to Sudan, I can say that 'war' is a very resonable word. Wikizach 02:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment more than 20% of the Chadian army is an elaborate accounting fraud. - Stlemur 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly do you mean? Even if this is true, wouldn't that even make this conflict more significant? -- Natalinasmpf 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Oppose Both the scale and severity are at this point unverifiable from any source apart from Mr. Wikizach. We most likely will have to move it sooner or later, but until further verification is available, I think we should hold off. JRob1488 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Chad declared War. Chadian troops have violated the national sovereignty of Sudan. The AU and OIC have sent delegates to try to end "the war" and the UN has condemned the attack on Adré...What more do you need for a war? KI 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Citing Wikizach's wikinews article I propose we move the page back to my earlier title: Chad-Sudan War. KI 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that CAF is involved can we please move this back to the original title...? What is the use of waiting, we know what it is, if not what it is going to become. KI 17:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If war is actually declared we should change it.  For now it seems that the parties have deliberately avoided formally declaring war.  How incredibly devastating has the Darfur conflict been, yet it's still not called a "war".--Pharos 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Declaration_of_War, formal declarations of war are avoided by states today, the Vietnam War, for instance was never formally declared. Yet it was a war, not just a "conflict," likewise this war may well never be declared, but it is a war nonethelessFurius
* From what I have heard here, they are trying to avoid it, yet they did declare war, wether you like it or not. Wikizach 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Regardless of whether the above is true, we still don't have independent confirmation of these mobilizations or anything. This article jumped the gun at inception; we should play it safe. - Stlemur 00:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: All of you are missing some a basic fact. It doesn't matter how many people have died, or whether Sudan is retaliating. All that matters is that Chad declared war. There is no... "maybe... it's a state of belligerance." This is the BBC trying to pretend it knows something the rest of the world doesn't. KI 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On moving this page to "War" instead of "Conflict"

message: A map that shows clearly the location of the countries involved may help this article. Thank you. CG 13:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would especially help if the borders of Darfur were shown distinctly. KI 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a map of Sudan with Darfur highlighted. It would be best if someone could combine the maps of Chad and Sudan into one map with Darfur obvious. - Cuivienen 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Hey, I am a correspondent and I have just found out that troops are engaging in battle. I am in the US embassy in Egypt, going to take a flight in about six hours to Chad.
Wikizach 19:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info, but unfortunately we can't really use "tips" without a written source; that's our "encyclopedic" standard.  I suppose we'll add it when you report on it.--Pharos 19:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, he could do original reporting for Wikinews, then cite Wikinews as a source. -- Natalinasmpf 20:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Until it is sourced it should not be included in the article. I have reverted to the last version by K4zem. KI 20:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well it's hopeful you have some evidence for the report, but just link it on Wikinews and we'll take care of citation matters . It could be cited just as any source, even with the wikinews template on it, or specifically as a footnote, it depends on how the article is presented. -- Natalinasmpf 00:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen anything on the various news sites about more casualties yet; Déby says that Sudan is planning an offensive and he wants the Central African Republic on his side. 
- Stlemur 13:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  No official statements yet, but I from what I have heard from them and researched they all want to cease fighting with their neighbors. Yet they doubt that it will stop anytime soon. Thank you for your kindness, once again, I need to get used to the timezone. 
Wikizach 01:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking News: CNN Correspondent

message: * I have spoken with several members of the Chadian National Assembly, and they are telling me that they are preparing for much more than a 'conflict'. The war hasen't started yet, but they say it will soon. Next I am going to have an early(really early) dinner in just 10 minutes (5PM in Chad) with some other members of the Chadian government and also a embassy official. I will continue to update.
Wikizach 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No official statements yet, but I from what I have heard from them and researched they all want to cease fighting with their neighbors. Yet they doubt that it will stop anytime soon. Thank you for your kindness, once again, I need to get used to the timezone. 
Wikizach 01:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Day 2

message: Today, I am in Chad's capitol (N'Djamena), once again talking with Assembly members of the Chadian government. Later today, my crew will be heading out towards the 'danger zone' (Darfur region). Yes, we will be safe, but we will be going with UN and Chadian troops to count some who died in a Sudan raid on a village last night. Wikizach 15:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Day 3

message: This afternoon we are going to Doba, Chad to talk with civilians. Then we will travel back to the capitol, preparing for our last visit to a village before we leave in January.
Wikizach 17:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Day Four (4)

message: Quote: "The Security Council on Wednesday issued a statement condemning the attacks on Adré and endorsing efforts to reduce tensions along the border."
The problem with that statement is that when I look here http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/presidency/press_05.htm I see no statement that even mentions the Battle of Adré, much less Chad. KI 02:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait never mind, I found it elsewhere on the page. I've temporarily replaced my userpage with the text of the Security Council statement. Eventually someone should move this to Wikisource. KI 02:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reuters discrepancy

message: Since I am not majoring in Modern Political Science, I was curious if any political think-tanks (or correspondants) have determined the cause/reason for the Battle of Adré and M. Nour's justification/claims. Since he has stated that he legitmately acknowledges Sudan/RDL involvement, an early formation of a 'Casus Belli' section or a scholarly conjecture in this Discussion Group would provide some clarity to this conflict. (KAsano 03:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nour accuses Déby of being even more corrupt than his predecessor. Nour and other officers formed the RDL because they say the previous presidential elections were unfair, which they were. The Battle of Adré was mainly aimed at the Military of Chad rather than the civilian population. As far as actual Sudanese support for the attack goes, it only appears as though they've treated the wounded. I've seen no evidence of financial support. Déby seems to have overreacted to Sudan's indifference, or he thinks he can shift the Chadian people's attention from growing domestic problems to a regime that is already accused of genocide and of supporting the LRA cult. KI 03:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm unsure about your statistics (1500? Source???) , but it seems like the best parallel to what's going on in terms of the relationship between Chad and Sudan is the Islamic world and Israel - divert domestic dissent into anger at an easy target. Déby's own tribe accuses him of doing too little to fight the Janjaweed and it is known that Sudan funds their attacks. It is not unreasonable to say that the Janjaweed are attacking Chad, but as for direct Sudanese support...that's really up to interpretation. KI 03:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also unsure about Nour's acknowledgment that Sudan is helping him. Could you provide a source? KI 03:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Casus Belli

message: Ahmad Allami is the same person as Ahmad Allam-Mi (mentioned in the next section). His name is spelled several different ways in English-language reports. My change was just to keep the spelling consistent here. --Cam 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allami or Allam-Mi

message: Does anyone know whether Sudan's regular armed forces are included in this figure or just the rebel groups?JRob1488 05:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Troop strength

message: It seems that these clashes are a continuation of the ongoing civil war in Chad. The main objective of the rebels is to oust Déby. It also seems this can be a merge of the Chad civil war and the Darfur conflict
P.S. - no sign of Sudanese ground troops activities so far. --TheFEARgod 10:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chad civil war continuation?

message: The edit  changed a reference from "anarchy" to "anomy".  The meaning of "anomy" or "anomie" as lack of rule of law is not generally accepted.  (see Talk:Anomie#Suspected Original Research, "Anomie, in contemporary English means ...".  See also the Dictionary.com entries for anomy and anomie.  I will change this to Anarchy.  --BostonMA 14:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way this is irrelevant because the word Annan used was "anarchy". KI 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The meaning of "anomie/anomy"

message: "Chad's President Idris Debi accused members of Janjawid, which are supported by the Sudanese government, of killing 55 shepherds in Madioun village. He added that the confrontations which took place between Chad's army and "the horse-men who were wearing the military uniform" resulted in killing 17 attackers and three Chad's soldiers. Deibi said that Chad which mediated in the peace process in Darfur, where a fragile agreement was adopted to cease fire since April 2004, played a basic role in easing down tensions without alienating to any of the warring side."
The only source that I can find that talks about this is: http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050930/2005093023.html. KI 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack on Madioun village

message: My changes to cleanup and clarify portions of the article were mass-reverted, a pet peeve of mine when somebody misuses revert, instead of dealing with each change on its own.  So here they are.
#The Chad-Sudan War began on December 23, 2005, when the government of Chad declared, according to translations, a "state of war" (BBC News ) or "state of belligerence" (Reuters ) with Sudan; the statement in Chad's official French reads "état de belligérance" (as reported in Le Monde ). was greatly reduced in length, and made more clear instead with The Chad-Sudan War began on December 23, 2005, when the government of Chad declared an "état de belligérance", or 'state of war' with Sudan. which I don't think lacks any of the details, other than the fact French is their national language, which is not relevant to the article, and assumed from the quote of "état de belligérance".
#led to the deaths of either one hundred rebels, as reported by all major news sources, while Reuters and CNN report 300 rebels, and IRIN News reports 300 rebels, 5 soldiers, and 3 civilians.  was changed to led to the deaths of 100-300 rebels, 5 soldiers, and 3 civilians. which gives the same casualty numbers, but doesn't over-reference, and doesn't contradict itself ("All major news sources...CNN reports...Reuters reports", Reuters and CNN are two of the largest news/wire services in the world)
#On December 26 Chadian Foreign Affairs Minister Ahmad Allam-Mi told foreign ambassadors in the capital N’Djamena, "The attacks were repulsed by the Chadian army which, using its right to pursuit, destroyed a few rebel bases implanted in Sudanese territory." was reworded to an indirect quote, because it requires less deciphering by the reader, to say On December 26 Chadian Foreign Affairs Minister Ahmad Allam-Mi told foreign ambassadors in N’Djamena that the Chadian army had pursued Sudanese across the border, and destroyed rebel bases inside Sudan.
#The statement The Chadian Foreign Ministry told the Sudanese ambassador to Chad to "cease all aggression against Chad." was removed as somewhat POV, since we can't report every little comment sent to every ambassador, and it doesn't add anything to the article we haven't already said, is not referenced, does not identify either individual, and is just fairly poor form.
I am putting it back, please discuss any issues you have, or justify calling this "vandalism", before changing them. Much thanks Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 03:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits were bizarre. From top to bottom lister here: You cannot declare a quote by a minister (not an ambassador as you incorrectly stated) as "pov." All quotes from such ministers are pov. You also "reworded" another quote which was easy to understand. The 3rd change up is fine, though this is actually incorrect -> Reuters and CNN gave conflicting reports, a separate CNN source and Reuters also mention it as 100 rebels, so I think we should just not include that reference and leave it as 100. The first change was fine. KI 04:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone reverts my re-additions, make sure to keep El C's. KI 04:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: To your first point, sure I can, this is not an article on the minister (I said *TO* an ambassador, which is correct), and over-reporting one side of a war, without equal attention paid to the other side, is POV. It adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the war to hear the Minister's quote, which is what an encyclopaedia is for. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 04:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, you're missing the point. The quote doesn't give the article pro-Chad pov. If anything it shows how overzealous the Chadian government is being. The only reason why the Sudanese side is underrepresented is because they haven't said anything other than 'we dont know what you're talking about'. Find more quotes, add them, fine, but dont delete or "reword" relevant quotes from high level officials. The more content the better. Also, please vote on whether or not to move the page to Chad-Sudan War. KI 04:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert?

message: Lam Akol is the foreign minister of Sudan . Al-Samani al-Wasilah (spelled variously in English) is the state minister at the ministry of foreign affairs of Sudan, abbreviated to state minister for foreign affairs in recent reports. 
Both men are mentioned in this Sudan Tribune article from October. My edit was to better distinguish the two titles by giving a longer form for Al-Samani's title. If the shorter one works better we can keep it. --Cam 04:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see how it's a longer form. To me, it's just redundant, therefore I don't see how it helps to distinguish them. For further references just refer to them as Akol and Wasilah. KI 04:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't have an opinion on what title to introduce them as, but as KI says, all later references should simply be their surname Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 04:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not understand your sensitivity to the title issue. Please do not revert the title to Minister of Foreign Affairs which is incomplete and confusing (because it is confusable with Akol's title). If you revert I will assume you have not read this note. --Cam 04:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles of Lam Akol and Al-Samani al-Wasilah

message: In the fact box, Sudan is listed as a combatant, yet they have not engaged in any combat. It would seem silly to remove them as a combatant, given the title of the article, yet it is inaccurate to include them. Perhaps a note next to them should indicate that they have not participated militarily in the conflict. Any thoughts?JRob1488 03:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Sudan is providing (substantial) financial or material support to either the RDL, SCUD, or the Janjaweed, then we should consider them combatants. I point out (once again) that Chad declared war on Sudan, not on the rebels. If Sudanese government is not already losing men, they will soon. KI 03:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is overwhelming evidence that Sudan is funding the Janjaweed (which we should accept as fact) and since Chad accuses Sudan of aiding the other two rebel groups, we should include that POV. So... at the moment...whether or not this constitutes a war should be based on:
# How serious Idriss Déby was when he made the declaration
# Were the Janjaweed involved in past attacks - specifically on Adré (which would mean War), or are they allied to the other two groups
# Whether Sudan has counterrattacked (which would mean War)
# Whether the AU, EU, UN, or US refer to efforts to "end the war" - note this should not be based on news outlet interpretation of statements, but actual statements KI 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This sounds reasonable to me.
JRob1488 19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Combatants

message: Not sure where to put this in the article: according to Reuters   eight rebel groups (including RDL and SCUD) have agreed to form a military alliance called the Front uni pour le changement démocratique (United Front for Democratic Change), under the leadership of RDL's Mohammed Nour. The group says it is dedicated to overthrowing Déby and relaunching the democratic process in Chad. (A press release from the group has been published here .) --Cam 00:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the Reuters report in English:  --Cam 17:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already created a page on that. See United Front for Democratic Change. KI 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither one of your links is in English... and I dont speak French... Please see UFDC and add any info from your links that is not already there. I have the English version of your first link as my source for the info on the UFDC page. KI 18:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link 21 is in English. It appears to be an English version of link 19. I'll add future info to the UFDC page. --Cam 19:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eight Chadian rebel groups join in a "united front"

message: Should we keep the rebels in the summary of the sides ? It's the Sudan - Chad conflict, not sure it is relevant to put the rebel alliance in there. Unisigned comment by Narval
:We should definitely have the rebel alliance here. The actual conflict has thus far only been between the Chadian army and the rebels. The real question, as I see it, is whether we should be factoring in the Sudanese army. KI 20:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the rebels in summary of forces ?

message: I'm removing this article from the self-nom Good Article list because it fails to states its references, a requirement for GA status. Also, judging by the fact that the article documents a current event, it isn't exactly stable. There has been several reversions on the history page of the article. AndyZ 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this fail to state its references? Every reference is stated. Bizarre. KI 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to a reply by User:KI, I acknowledge now that there are references; however they are under an external links section which is why I skipped over them. However, external links probably should be changed to References or Online References or something like that; an external links section often does not usually contain references though they may have been used by the author. Most usually references are listed under a references section; see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#References. The constant external links should be changed to Footnotes since they hamper the page's Readability. In addition, the article raises the question of being stable, since it is a current event. For example, there is a quote in the article that indicates an attack "in a few days". Also, though there are no edit wars, there are several reversions within the history of the article. Finally, why is Battle of Borota under "Future attacks"? AndyZ 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FailGA

message: The casualties seem completely random. Any sources for them ? If not, I'll put none, or maybe add up the known lossed of each side. Do you count civilians in there ?- Narval, 12 january.
:Do not remove the casualties or other users' comments or you will be blocked. Deliberately trying to disrupt an article falls under the category of vandalism. KI 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: :Places
*Chad
*Sudan
*Adré
*Geneina, Sudan
*Abéché
:People
*Mohammed Nour Abdelkerim
*Yaya Dillo Djérou
*Abdelwahit About
*Omar el-Bashir
*Idriss Déby
*Lam Akol
*Ahmed Aboul Gheit
*Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim
*Baba Gana Kingibe
*Fur people
*Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
:Organizations
*United Front for Democratic Change
*Platform for Change, Unity and Democracy
*Alliance of Revolutionary Forces of West Sudan
*Janjaweed
*Rally for Democracy and Liberty
*National Movement for Reform and Development
*United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
*African Union Mission in Sudan
*Association Tchadienne pour la Promotion et la Défense des Droits de l'Homme
*Military of Chad
*Military of Sudan
*Chad Air Force
:History
*History of Sudan
*History of Chad
:Battles
*Battle of Adré
*Battle of Borota
It would be great if someone could create a Chadian-Sudanese conflict template with the above terms. KI 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles that need updating

message: I just added the titles and dates for all the references except one that takes you to an AllAfrica member login page and another that Yahoo says it can't find.  What gets done for that kind of thing?
--Eitan1989 14:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what to do about the broken yahoo link, but I'm a member of AllAfrica so I'll try and find that one. Thanks for all the help with the references. I should have done that a week ago but I've been lazy. KI 18:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the two links with other news sources that have the same info and everyone can access. Now we just need to use a uniform date style for the references and this will be a good article. KI 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with broken references? 

message: Uh, military infoboxes don't really support third parties...in cases where there are more than two main sides, ie. Warring States Era, Three Kingdoms, I think that either a more complex custom infobox is needed, or another way of summarisation is needed anyway. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and fix the box. I'm reading the HRW report right now, and apparently the Janjaweed have at times been cooperating with the RDL, even going as far as to inform them of attacks several days in advance, but then they fought against the RDL at other times... The report also has several other revelations about the conflict currently not posted on Wikipedia, particularly regarding troop movements and the Sudanese military in Chad. KI 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this case, they might be counted as one, disunited side; for example, consider the vulnerable and flimsy alliance between the Communist Eighth Route Army in comparison to say Kuomintang National Revolutionary Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War (conflict between two nations), then afterwards they dueled it out amongst themselves to conclude the Chinese Civil War. As the two armies were on the same side in terms of fighting the Japanese, so these two armies are on the same side in the context of Chadian-Sudanese fighting then they would be on one side, as long as the Janjaweed did not aid the other side either (ie. if A and B fights C, and A and B fight or ally with each other, then A and B can be considered one side in context with war with C itself). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Janjaweed

message: Well, I am not sure that the state of relations between Sudan and Chad have devolved into conflict again, but it seems that the Tripoli Agremenet has been thrown out the window, with Chad threatening to expel 200,000 refugees from Darfur.  Perhaps the conflict isn't over yet? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By my count the Sudanese have broken the accord three times. KI 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are we supposed to include rebel activity as part of the conflict, although it is a casus belli...AFAIK the Chadian grievance is the Sudanese passiveness in allowing the rebels to establish a base in Sudan. Should we consider the rebel conflict and the Sudan-Chad conflict as one, because that's what we're doing currently by including the Battle of N'Djamena. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh look, war again!  

message: This article should have a clear timeline of events--TheFEARgod 12:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: now it's done!--TheFEARgod 12:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No timeline 

message: See news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5121792.stm--TheFEARgod 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: Why exactly should "Chadian-Sudanese conflict" be preferred over "Chad-Sudan conflict"; I don't see anything more "correct" about the adjectival form.--Pharos 07:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, really it is also a conflict between Chad and Sudan, and at the same time a Chadian Civil War and the Darfur conflict. Nothing very unusual; in the 80s there was a Chadian-Libyan war, and at the same time a Chadian Civil War, as now all strongly mixed.--Aldux 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The article doesn't mention any fight between Chadian and Sudanese forces. At all...--TheFEARgod 02:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, really the Janjaweed are Sdanese paramilitary, and there have been important clashes with the Chadian army.--Aldux 12:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: someone put a three-sided box. If the Janjaweed are Sudanese paramilitary, they should be on the same side of Sudan. Or put Chadian-Janjaweed conflict--TheFEARgod 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjectival name 

message: Concerns for delisting:
* The Lead section could be summarized a bit better.
* The subsection Border town raids in January 2006 should be expanded. I also don't think there is a need for a main article to link too since it is a minor incident in a large conflict.
* Inline external links should be turned into footnotes.
* Too many quotes ... it dilutes the message ... it also means referencing which is sometimes lacking.
* Lastly, it has a current event tag and a not up-to-date tag that states that the article is not broad enough. Lincher 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisted

message: There are a lot of articles still talking about the Chad-Sudanese war. These are e.g.:
* Darfur conflict
* History of Chad
* Central African War
Furtheron, there's an article about Second Chadian Civil War, but noone on First Chadian Civil War. Maybe restructure the article Chadian Civil War to also include the Second Chadian Civil War article, since I haven't heard about any scholars talking about the First and the Second ditto.
The History of Chad template need also be updated, for instance with this aforementioned Chadian Civil War article.
Mårten Berglund 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name consistency and organization on Chad articles 

message: Amdjereme raid, Dalola raid, Borota raid should be merged here.
Reasons:
*small skirmishes (there were dozens like that)  From HRW source: "According to the secretary general of Adré prefecture, Janjaweed militias have attacked more than fifty border villages in the prefecture since December 18")
*The articles are stub-size and can hardly be expanded as sources lack, and such a stub easily fits in the main article.  Better merge than delete. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had missed this one. In my opinion, Amdjereme raid and Dalola raid can be merged without great loss, as they are events of low importance (even if they would probably pass WP:N). As for Borota raid, the article is pretty ugly now, but the raids that invested the Borota subprefecture in December-January are among the turning points of the conflict (mybe Borota raids would be a better name).--Aldux 08:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers 

message: Excuse me, but this article doesn't seem to cover what caused the war and what the rebel's ideology is. There is a distinct lack of information. For instance, are they terrorist related? Communist revolutionaries?  There is no information for people to figure it out. Contralya (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: absolutely true, someone should fill in the "background" section --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation? 

message: Should the article be flagged with a still-in-flux ongoing current event type infobox (whatever the template is called)? Each day brings new developments and certain sections of the article don't give the impression things are being currently reported in major news outlets such as the lead story on the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7224691.stm as an example. Flagging the article (or at least the most current section) would both let readers know edits may quickly change as news is reported. Same thing with the article on Chad itself; those going to the article on the country may be interested in this page to get a background on the current crisis. Gront (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag as Current Event? 

message: We had problems before regarding the name Second Chadian Civil War as it was not clear if it was a second one. The current name is the most descriptive I could think of, as the war with Chadians vs. Chadians is a civil war. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's pretty clear that your right. The problematic issue is another: the selection of December 2005 as the date in which the war has started, as there is utterly no doubt that many armed groups were already engaginging the government long before that. To put it clearly, civil war started in Chad by general consensus in 1965, and violence has never ended since then. Robert Buijtenhuijs puts the end of the period of most disruptive civil confrontation in 1990, but he also aknowledges that armed confrontation continued up to the period he analyzes, 1993-97, and this was rekindled by Togoimi's rebellion in 1998. In brief, we need good sources that explitely state that a large scale phase of civil war began in 2005, with aspects that make this rebellion a quality leap from the pervasive violence already present before.--Aldux (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: take a look to the "background" part: says some constitution changes provoked mass desertions and thus a rebellion. The year 2005 seems to have a lot of importance and reports from Chad says the heaviest fighting begun on Dec. 2005. Feel free to expand the backg. with info you think is important so we make the problem clear.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Chadian Civil War fits with First or Second before it and Civil war in Chad with the years after it. Similar example for the first: Second Chechen War; Example for the second: War in Somalia (2006-present)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: :Image:Chad gunmen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Chad gunmen.jpg

message: (previously known as TheFEARgod), who contributed much of this article, has been blocked for widespread and persistent copyright violations. From conducting spot checks on their contributions here it appears that they are largely copyright violations (as they were copied and pasted from news stories) and are still in the article. Please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/De Administrando Imperio#Articles 121 through 140 for the relevant diffs and background. Assistance with removing these copy vios is requested, and the article may be reduced to a stub as a precautionary measure if they are not removed. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive copyright problems 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chadian Civil War (2005–10). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207035718/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/55C5792F-6112-427D-92C1-69A2E5C38785.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55C5792F-6112-427D-92C1-69A2E5C38785.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chadian Civil War (2005–2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55C5792F-6112-427D-92C1-69A2E5C38785.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409121605/http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/spotlight/sudan/Sudan_pdf/SIB%209%20Chadian%20instability.pdf to http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/spotlight/sudan/Sudan_pdf/SIB%209%20Chadian%20instability.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified