Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:04, 23 December 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: National / African This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force African military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: South Sudan This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Sudan.

to do

Reactions from Sudan and AU in particular. and abyei region.(Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)).

Missing leg

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

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

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

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

Added importance, no rating

I've added importance to the templates, but I've left the rating fields blank while the situation is on-going. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong title?

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

this is now a military conflict and should be named as such--78.0.115.43 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What should the title be then? Any suggestions? There is already a South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present) which is about the various rebellions and ethnic conflicts. JustBeCool (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

merge proposal--78.0.115.43 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is now too long to feasibly merge into another, so should continue as an expansion, but perhaps needs additional detailing in South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

we should wait a bit since media started talking that it's on a verge of civil war...--78.0.115.43 (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I had my doubts in the beginning too, instead calling it a mutiny. But no one else did and all the sources then said coup. It could be a process and a long-drawn out coup, if you must.

But I also agree, its too seperate to be merged (and the ethnic element is dubious, this is certainly very political). We could move the title. But as the IP says maybe we shuld wait a bit. No harm really.

Otherwise am open to suggestions, but would insist on discussion before move warringLihaas (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What I originally meant was that it is not certain if it was a "coup" as the title said. It is an alleged coup. JustBeCool (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Title doesnt say alleged, it says attemt. Which considering it failed then is an attempt(Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)).

Lol. I guess I am really not being clear. My concern is that this article's title states "coup" as if it was definitely a coup. Only the government is alleging that it was a coup. South Sudan expert Douglas H Johnson is not even sure if he could have called it a "concerted mutiny". Either way, this article has gone beyond the initial (alleged) coup and includes current fighting in Bor that no one describes as a coup so the article title would have to change anyway. JustBeCool (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

True, it is though a "consequence" of the "coup" as a precipitating incident. Still though, I'm not seeing suggestiong for a new name so we have nothing to discuss there. Mutiny and coup seem to be off (though do you have a soruce for Johnson's quote?), should we go with 2013 South Sudan political crisis? (the linkbelow calls it thta)(Lihaas (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)).

This is the source for the Johnson quote, . Calling it 2013 South Sudan political crisis seems fine and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is also giving it the safe name of "South Sudan Crisis" JustBeCool (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ill add the link stuff tomorrow (and more to add)

 Done and ResolvedLihaas (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

this is a military conflict--93.137.112.74 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

So what do you propose? "Battle of ..."?Lihaas (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

to remove the word "political"--93.137.112.74 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Largely ethnic faction"

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

It is dodgy (though hardly offensive), but the media are labeling it in ethnic terms, broadly. However, I have read (and as the main contributor, Ive been doing a LOT of reading on this (even looking for MORE)) Kiir is opposed by soem DInka like Garang's wife. Hes really coming out as power mad.

This mjight be synthesis but its odd that after teh factionalism from teh cabinet reshuffle (could be a prempted counter-coup in solidfying hsi hold), he dint go the UNGA General Debate for teh first time since independence..(Lihaas (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)).

Good orientation on present crisis

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

Good find, and pretty much ensures my analysis that it is not ethnic.

Resolved(Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)).

SPLA

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

BRD means consensus seeking. You have a real problem seeing consensus dont you? Instead you come here to accuse people and yet there i sno consensus. Consensus does not mean inserting your view and thaen enforcing it while threatening others. Sorry there is no consensus yet on this.

As a compromise however, we can keep that link with the context that is the national armed forces as it is in any country despite having official names in whatever direction.(Lihaas (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)).

The notion of posting a message on talk page, opening a discussion is exact the way to search consensus. Moreover, in my last edit, i changed the opening sentence to "Sudan People's Liberation Army (the armed forces of South Sudan)". I think it's preferable to use the term SPLA, as it is the common naming in South Sudan (the term 'SPLA' is arguably more common that just 'the army' in common parlance, result of the fact that the SPLA is still viewed as an armed faction amongst others). If the term "armed forces of South Sudan" appears in the text, it should not have capital letters (which would indicate an abbreviation). Lastly, I can't see how I would have threatened anyone in this process. --Soman (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

But you started it in an accusatory manner. All armies have official names (see China/North Korea).

Further in the context of this event, the context of a SPLIT in the state army is more important than that of an organization.

Anyhoo, I can agree to not using capital if that's accommodative and solving this?/(Lihaas (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).

I'd say that there is a distinct difference between say, the naming on the Malian army in int'l press and the naming of SPLA in the same media. SPLA is an entity that transcends from the 2nd Sudanese civil war to independence, and albeit (in theory) being the republican armed forces this distinction isn't always very clear. The article Armed Forces of South Sudan was created on the basis of a crystaball reading of the new constitution, but the realities on the ground is that the SPLA never really reformed. Notably the South Sudanese government has a post called 'Minister of SPLA Affairs'. --Soman (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with your reading (and that is the issue here).

But I would this same instane is the cause of the conflict, so the context of it being with the national army it where the relevacne lies. It is a fight within the party...although after the coup title changed recently perhaps the army element is not as important. (note i also changed teh section title about the coup)Lihaas (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

UN peacekeeper deaths

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

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

Notice

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

Srebrenica massacre see also

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

I agree that the Srebrenica link is inappropriate, and leads to false conclusions, and we have no info that states that UN forces were inactive. If a comparison between the Srebrenica and Akobo massacres would be discussed in reliable third-party sources in the future, then a reference to it could be re-added. --Soman (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Its not the massacre that is at play, its the instance of the violation of the UN compound (there was not direct link there). Perhaps we can link to that section aS THE comparision here is the cviolation of the supposed neutral UN compounds amidst armed conflict. Mind you it did mention the comparision reason and wasnt a blnaket link.

As an aside, thanks for coming to talk...I was coming here too. (after seeing it just now)(Lihaas (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).

A fair point as it relates specifically to the UN compound, but for now I would also advise we hold off on using this as a "see also" link. Overall, the details of the violence remain surprisingly foggy, and at the moment it is difficult to determine who is actually doing what. UN compounds have clearly been violated, but it's still not clear just exactly who's fighting who at the moment. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

United States as a belligerent?

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

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

Its a better idea to discuss as per the OP.

As for the argument, the military was drawn into the conflict by thte firing...so they seem a aprt of it. But im okey with just putting it in the article instead o f the box.(Lihaas (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)).

The New York Times story on the successful evacuation of the US personnel today makes it clear that the US isn't engaged in the fighting: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/world/africa/americans-evacuated-from-south-sudan.html?hp As such, I've just removed the US from the infobox: the failed evacuation is covered in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Internal conflict?

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

I don't get it, you just said that it is a part of the tribal warfare in South Sudan, but at the same time you're skeptic about acknowledging it as such, what exaxtly are you trying to say? Charles Essie (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class national militaries articles
• National militaries task force articles
• B-Class African military history articles
• African military history task force articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed Africa articles
• Unknown-importance Africa articles
• Unassessed South Sudan articles
• Unknown-importance South Sudan articles
• WikiProject South Sudan articles
• WikiProject Africa articles