Talk:Chadian Civil War (2005–2010)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateChadian Civil War (2005–2010) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 22, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 13, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 18, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Requested move[edit]

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)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support[edit]

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)[reply]

2. Support The scale (300 casualties, at the minimum) and severity (movement/moblization and combat usage of armoured calvary) of the conflict, and the need for a CLARITY in modern African politics, calls for a definitive and scholarly move to create order and organization of modern African history: the process of Westernized history and information of modern Africa begins here, and will provide the chance of a deep, intellectual, historical comprehension of history for all Wikipedians; the critical nature of this category of recent news deserves the attention and severity all other current Wars recieve. KAsano 03:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support This is clearly war, as Wikizach have reported... Jonatanj 12:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support Though KAsano is incorrect, the casualties, at the minimum are 100, not 300, and we should not take Wikizach seriously until we have at least one news source that confirms his reporting. KI 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support. At least 1% to 2% of the Chadian Army is already dead. That's a significant casualty rate for a first few days of conflict, enough to call it a war, if you ask me. -- Natalinasmpf 01:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more than 20% of the Chadian army is an elaborate accounting fraud. - Stlemur 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

6. Support, one side declares "war", it becomes a war. That's how the process works, at least informally Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support for reasons that are apparent enough - they called it a war. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 09:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8. Support yes obviously a war. -- Daniel Polehn 16:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Oppose for the same reasons as said by JRob1488 - Rudykog 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose one can not declare war as it is illegal under the international law (see laws of war#Declaration of war). What happens instead is everyone calls it an armed conflict until it is over, when it often becomes a called a war if it involves over a certain number of dead, often but arbitarily set at 1000 or more by Political scientists (eg User:Pmanderson/DPT#Empirical evidence states that "R. J. Rummel "studied all the wars from 1816 to 1991. He defined: war as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle"), see Google for the Falklands War as an example of this practice (a good one to choose because few (no?) non-combatant deaths and military deaths well documented). --Philip Baird Shearer 00:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose We need more info. Not a crystal ball. - Stlemur 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose mostly for the reasons given by Stlemur and JRob1488. The word "war" is more dramatic than the word "belligerence," so the BBC's version has become quite popular. But "the statement in Chad's official French reads 'état de belligérance' (as reported in Le Monde[1])." Using Babelfish, the French word for "war" is guerre. The English translation of belligérance is "belligerency." They didn't say "war." Because of the BBC's story, many people assume that the statement was a formal declaration of war. But, again, Reuters reported that "President Idriss Déby's government stopped short of declaring war or breaking ties with Sudan." --Mr. Billion 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose mostly for the reasons given by Stlemur and JRob1488 too. I shuold add this is probably a continuation of the Chad civil conflict --TheFEARgod 17:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Saying that there exists a "state of belligerency" is far different from saying that war has been declared.--Pharos 22:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Even though "state of belligerency" means that Sudan considers there is a war, there has been no opposition between governmental troops, and no one is really willing to attack it's neighbours. --Narval 12th January 2006

Discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

Chad declared a state of belligerence, which may or may not be the same as a declaration of war. Chadian troops did not violate the national sovreignty of Sudan, they excersized their right of pursuit to engage the attacking militia. Chadian and Sudan regular troops have not engaged in battle. Sudan publicly stated they did not want the situation to escalate. The fighting we are hearing about from Mr. Wikizach is fighting with a rebel group not with Sudan. Until further evidence arises to suggest that this is indeed an interstate war, we should show some restraint.JRob1488 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above entry is correct. The only data that I don't know yet is who is fighting. I know if I told you guys, that would help, but I don't know who it is. Today I went into the 'danger zone' but I heard no guns or bombs go off. I tried to find out but I can't. The people I have interviewed don't even know themselves. I guess that's what you expect from a 'third' world country. Wikizach 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War?[edit]

I haven't seen this on Google News...I would conclude that it is breaking news...but given Wikipedia's recent vandalisms, I suspect this is fictional...

If you click on the links I provided you will see that this article is 100% accurate. "Vandalisms" is not a word. KI 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalisms is too a word! Rampart 02:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It apparently is true...[2] --Revolución (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the name of this article is appropriate. The two countries haven't even attacked each other, and whether or not the "declaration of war" actually says "war" is dubious.
From the discussion on Talk:Ongoing wars:

The BBC quotes a statement from the Chadian government as saying "state of war," whereas the Sudan Tribune (which might be expected to know if its own country is at war) quotes the statement as saying "state of belligerence." [Al-Jazeera and CNN also quote the word as "belligerence."] I haven't seen the Sudan Tribune call Sudan's conflict with Chad a war anywhere. The linked Sudan Tribune article also talks of preventing war, which would indicate that war hasn't yet begun.


If the statement actually said "war," or if the two countries' armies actually attack each other, then it will clearly be a war. But to say they're formally at war based on conflicting reports when Sudanese sources aren't calling it a war is premature.

Chad is clearly behaving with hostility towards Sudan, but because they haven't actually attacked each other yet and the quote in question is very fishy, I don't think it's correct to call it a war. It may escalate into a war, but right now I don't see any indication that it already is one. The United Nations News Centre doesn't make any mention of this supposed "declaration of war." --Mr. Billion 07:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this from Reuters: "While President Idriss Déby's government stopped short of declaring war or breaking ties with Sudan, the statement was the toughest so far against its eastern neighbour over the Dec. 18 attacks against the border town of Adré." I think that we've jumped the gun on calling this a war. (I've emailed the BBC about the story quoting the statement as saying "war.") Comments? --Mr. Billion 07:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree; we should probably change war into conflict at this point in time. Any thoughts? El_C 08:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Appears to be to be a tense situation with rebel proxies employing violence, but not an inter-state war, at least not yet. Should be termed differently. Everyking 09:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to this and given the general ambiguity, I've moved the word "officially". - Stlemur 14:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed it to "conflict", as well as cut down on the over-adjectivalism.--Pharos 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters doesnt know what its talking about. Chad has already sent in planes and troops according to Sudan. The RDL has already begun planning their next attack for sure. The only reason not to call this a war is because there is a non-national group involved in the fighting. Conflict is too weak a word. I vote we change it to "Chadian-Sudanese state of belligerance." KI 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will truly find the awnser when I arrive there. Wikizach 20:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Mr. [Wikizach] for the up-to-date information; however, as I see the casualities of the Republic of Chad rising and I take stock of the grim military contrast of strength and equipment, I extend my caution and wishes of saftey to you. (KAsano 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

On moving this page to "War" instead of "Conflict"[edit]

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)[reply]

Three simultaneous answers- Mr. [Wikizach], thank you for your speedy respones and safe arrival in Chad: winds of Fate and Fortune aid you. Second- I, in err once again, mis-interpeted the report regarding Sudan's formal acknowledgement: I withdraw my earlier inquiry, but the Casus Belli is still open to Discussion. Third, and in relation- since Sudan has not made claims, and RDL is the only direct, formal party at this point, the article may have to remain 'Conflict:' as is we have had three changes as to whether Reuters should be translated 'state of war' to 'state of belligerence.' War may be too formal a term at his point, at Mr. [Wikizach]'s estimate of 465. (KAsano 04:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I withdraw my former statement regarding the ambiguity of conflict and war- I support Mr. [Wikizach]'s and Mr. [KI]'s motion to rename and edit the article to at least 'State of War.' Once again, pardons to my earlier mess of statements- my time-of-update and the article itself were poorly sychronized. As of now, what is the accessiblity of re-naming this article to 'Chad-Sudan War?' (KAsano 18:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The name seems a little off by Wikizach's report, but right now this situation is more like a conflict. We should wait until the war has an official battle before naming it again, or else we could get into a move war (which would be obnoxious). Ashibaka tock 21:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC) What defines an "official battle" though? I mean, there hasn't been anything decisive, true, but hundreds dead doesn't exactly seem like a small skirmish either (given that a significant portion of the Chadian army has suffered casualties). -- Natalinasmpf 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let us bear in mind that in African politics, most 'battles' will remain undefined in any instance. The European tradition of 'formal skirmish delegations' and honor pretexts died during the American Revolution. Even during the First World War, white flags were considered formal signs and declarations, not invitations to mass butchery (as in the Eastern Theatre of the Great Patriotic War). It is pertinent to understand here that civilian and militant alike are targets in this Chad-Sudan War (the UN Noon Briefing of December 27 cited rape and arson by militants), and therefore political and diplomatic intervention is being executed. As is, the Wikipedia has an entry as 'Battle of Adré,' and details the deaths of soldiers AND civilians. A CNN coorespondant (Mr. [Wikizach]) has confirmed that military action is taking place, and another here mentioned the mobilization of infantry and air force. The mere presense of such indicates a wider intention than domestic disruption. Many of the following weeks may be characterized by un-defined engagements, with hundreds of casualities: no formal declaration of battle could or would be made, for that would be perceived as false diplomacy. (KAsano 00:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

As evidenced by Mr. [Wikizach]'s contribution to the Battle of Adré report, armoured calvary (tanks) and combat infantry have been utilized, and both sides intentionally responded as such to the attack. A formal declaration of War would create too wide a divide in political agendas, and attract such international attention by other States that in-balancing intervention would occur; nonetheless, military utilization is confirmed by the Republic of Chad, and so it must be acted upon here, which, by virtue of its goal, is an organically and continually expanding Encyclopedia by the public, for the public. As 'The Federalist, Volume 10' should be para-phrased- "It is the public's duty and the federal government's responsiblity to provide accurate and true information, in order to preserve the civil virtue of the Republic." Regardless of the political formalities, it is our duty to create an accurate, and readily accessible source of information for our fellow citizens. Military action has occured on a major-skirmish scale: let us all give a supporing motion to up-date this article as the 'Chad-Sudan War.' (KAsano 02:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

Since Chad had declared that "a state of war exists" it's a war. Support move back to Chad-Sudan War. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

A map that shows clearly the location of the countries involved may help this article. Thank you. CG 13:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would especially help if the borders of Darfur were shown distinctly. KI 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Breaking News: CNN Correspondent[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Actually, he could do original reporting for Wikinews, then cite Wikinews as a source. -- Natalinasmpf 20:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Once I write an arcticle on Wikinews, how do I put the source in? Wikizach 00:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • I will have all the details later, once I arrive there, but thanks!

Wikizach 00:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmm, you haven't arrived there yet? Is there some source we could link to for the current casualty figures? It would clear up the objections of other editors - thanks. Good luck, don't get killed! -- Natalinasmpf 00:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I took off around, I would say 7 EST, and got here, at about, three 1/2 hours later. I will continue to give you updates as in just ten minutes, I am going to go out to the field to see what's happening. I will be safe of course!

Wikizach 03:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Report [4]

There you can get the source. It is really scary out here. I heard guns going off every minute. I just got briefed by a Chad embassy official. Wikizach 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am from Atlanta (Go Falcons!) and in all my reports, I have never gone this out of my timezone. So, I am very very tired. I will be sleeping in a special hotel tonight in the city. I will report when I wake up once more. Thank you for your support, Good Night, and Happy Holidays! Wikizach 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. [5][6][7]

- Stlemur 13:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am here mostly if this gets any bigger. I am just making a guess of the estimate. No one can confirm anything until it is over. The reason I changed some of the numbers is that an embassy official told me that the gun sounds I was hearing was of a local village. He also told me how many people live there. From that I estimated. I am about to go and travel to the Chad National Assembly in N'Djamena. I will continue to give you more updates as they come. Wikizach 14:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Day 2[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

  • I have just been briefed on another village attack. This one just a few miles into Sudan. About nine confirmed dead (Sudan). I will update my WikiNews article in a moment.

Wikizach 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent updates and information on your part, Mr. [Wikizach]. As you mentioned earlier, you were attending a meal with the the officials of the Republic of Chad- has any formal statements or claims been made? As is, this Discussion Group motioned to 'Chad-Sudan War,' so the matter of political diplomacy is over, and the state of conflicts/battles and governmental positions is in need of update here. Thank you again, and may you and your comrades be guarded against ill will. (KAsano 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

Day 3[edit]

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)[reply]

Day Four (4)[edit]

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)[reply]

Reuters discrepancy[edit]

Quote: "The Security Council on Wednesday issued a statement condemning the attacks on Adré and endorsing efforts to reduce tensions along the border."[8]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Casus Belli[edit]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Based on your conjecture, both parties seem to be using an ethical/moralistic public accusation for a rather domestical/political aim: unification in the common call of arms. Am I correctly comprehending your earlier post? If so, then the wide-spread casualties (1,500 est. and rising) seems to be have been the result of a more Sherman-esque approach to what could have been limited to isolated confrontation, in exemplum the War of 1812. More variety of political analysis/interpetation and perspective would be greatly benefical to this dicussion. (KAsano 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I should pardon to my earlier estimate, as I was roughly calculating the total loss on BOTH sides, and at maximum estimate- once again, if I offended any parties or political associations, I beg pardons. Does Mr. [Wikizach] have any information regarding the rise of casualities? As he is the only correspondant in this Discussion Group (so far) , he may provide some further information. Any informative sources or political 'think-tanks' (as loosely defined)are welcome to add information, especially in regards to formal conjecture on the Casus Belli and political analysis. And in regards to the Casus Belli: is the subject too new and un-neutral to formally post as part of the article? (KAsano 04:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Allami or Allam-Mi[edit]

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)[reply]

Troop strength[edit]

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)[reply]

It almost certainly includes the rebel groups, I think, given the disparity in the numerical strength of the two sides. -- Natalinasmpf 14:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but is it also including the Sudanese regulars?JRob1488 22:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chad civil war continuation?[edit]

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)[reply]

The meaning of "anomie/anomy"[edit]

The edit [9] 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)[reply]

I see someone beat me to it. --BostonMA 14:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either way this is irrelevant because the word Annan used was "anarchy". KI 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but anarchy is effective a disambiguation page. It disambiguates to anomy, in this context. -- Natalinasmpf 01:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Madioun village[edit]

"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)[reply]

The above incident should be included as should info from the CEMAC summit. KI 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert?[edit]

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.

  1. The Chad-Sudan War began on December 23, 2005, when the government of Chad declared, according to translations, a "state of war" (BBC News [10]) or "state of belligerence" (Reuters [11]) with Sudan; the statement in Chad's official French reads "état de belligérance" (as reported in Le Monde [12]). 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.[13] 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".
  1. led to the deaths of either one hundred rebels, as reported by all major news sources, while Reuters[14] and CNN report 300 rebels, and IRIN News reports 300 rebels, 5 soldiers, and 3 civilians. [15] was changed to led to the deaths of 100-300 rebels, 5 soldiers, and 3 civilians.[16] 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)
  1. 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.
  1. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
If anyone reverts my re-additions, make sure to keep El C's. KI 04:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Titles of Lam Akol and Al-Samani al-Wasilah[edit]

Lam Akol is the foreign minister of Sudan [17]. 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. [18] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Combatants[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can understand where you are coming from, but I would like to point out two things.

  1. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see [WP:NOT]) Therefore, your statement that the Sudanese government will soon lose men, while it may be true, is not pertinent.
  2. I would be willing to accept that Sudan's aiding of the rebels would substantiate combatant status. It would be POV of us to assume that these allegations are true.

JRob1488 04:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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:
  1. How serious Idriss Déby was when he made the declaration
  2. Were the Janjaweed involved in past attacks - specifically on Adré (which would mean War), or are they allied to the other two groups
  3. Whether Sudan has counterrattacked (which would mean War)
  4. 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)[reply]
This sounds reasonable to me.

JRob1488 19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Sudan arrested Abdelwahit About, we should change the formatting on the template on the right so that the combatants are separate: combatant1 is Sudan, combatant2 is UFDC, and combatant3 is Chad. KI 23:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Chadian rebel groups join in a "united front"[edit]

Not sure where to put this in the article: according to Reuters [19] 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 [20].) --Cam 00:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Reuters report in English: [21] --Cam 17:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have already created a page on that. See United Front for Democratic Change. KI 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Keep the rebels in summary of forces ?[edit]

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)[reply]

FailGA[edit]

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)[reply]

How does this fail to state its references? Every reference is stated. Bizarre. KI 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

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)[reply]

Articles that need updating[edit]

Places


People


Organizations


History


Battles

It would be great if someone could create a Chadian-Sudanese conflict template with the above terms. KI 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with broken references?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Janjaweed[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

oh look, war again![edit]

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. [22] Perhaps the conflict isn't over yet? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By my count the Sudanese have broken the accord three times. KI 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

No timeline[edit]

This article should have a clear timeline of events--TheFEARgod 12:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now it's done!--TheFEARgod 12:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News[edit]

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

Adjectival name[edit]

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)[reply]

CHAD-SUDAN CONFLICT should be an article which includes the internal struggle in Chad and Darfur. The conflict IS NOT between Chad and Sudan but IN Chad and Sudan--TheFEARgod 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

GA delisted[edit]

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)[reply]

Inaccurate quote?[edit]

Is there a source for the "the lives that were lost and the chickens that were stolen" quote in the 4th paragraph? It appears to have been paraphrased from the article in footnote 5, in which case quotation marks are inappropriate.

Name revision[edit]

The conflict between the two countries' armies never happened, and I suggest to rename the article to 2005-2006 Chadian rebellion, which is ongoing, and now makes part of the wider Central African War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article with it's template seems as a great hoax by vandal, sockpuppet an banned user:KI --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KI wasn't a sockpuppet; he had simply changed his name from Freestylefrappe to KI, but only used one account at a time; and certainly, at least on Africa-related articles, I've never seen him indulge in vandalic behaviour, and while discussing with him on Chadian articles I've always found him civil. Unfortunately, he had a terrible temper, and very often overreacted when confronted, which brought him to exhaust the patience of several admins, and get blocked; but his quality as an admin is proved among other things by the fact that he was entrusted with the admin. tools.
Regarding this article I think there are few doubts that Chad and especially Sudan are conducing a proxy war one against each other; and the support by Sudan of the rebels has been confirmed by the same rebels. Nothing very original, BTW; Sudan in 1982 gave bases and equipment for Habré's COOKIE!!!!! victory, and they did exactly the same in 1990 with Déby.
Regarding the name you have a good point; it is indeed problematic, because while Sudan plays an important role, this is first of all a civil war; only the title you propose is not very satisfying, since the unset of the Second Chadian Civil War is thought to be 1994-1998. [23]; what changes in 2005 is the role of Sudan, that become overtly partisan.--Aldux 15:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then Third Chadian Civil War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name consistency and organization on Chad articles[edit]

There are a lot of articles still talking about the Chad-Sudanese war. These are e.g.:

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)[reply]

Name revision (2)[edit]

I think the term civil war for this conflict is a bit innacurate and unsourced. Since reuters calls both the War in Somalia (2006-present) and this war as "Somalia troubles" and "Chad troubles" [24] and [25] I propose giving to this conflict a more neutral name: War in Chad (2005-present) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite -- it should be War in Chad (2005–present).
While the statement "the term civil war for this conflict is a bit innacurate and unsourced" leaves me very puzzled; wat do you exactly mean? That there is no clear evidence of a civil conflict in eastern Chad? But if this is your idea, as we both agree that the term "Chadian-Sudanese conflict" was abusive, how would you define the nature of the ongoing conflict, and where do we place the 170,000, and rapidly increasing internally displaced Chadians in the East?
This said, I fully agree your idea, as the notion of "second" civil war had always left me uneasy, since civil strife goes on ininterruptedly since 1965 (there have been obviously ups - 1965-87, 2005-present - and downs 1987-1989, 1993-1998), so periodizations are problematic.
Also a last aspect: you should be a bit less unilateral in your moves or merges on Chad-related topics. I certainly don't pretend to be omniscient, but I think I can reasonably say that among wikipedian editors I'm certainly the one that follows most carefully Chad, whose related articles I have all on my watchlist, even if, while I am collecting data, I have generally avoided editing extensively current topics, and generally discussion helps bettering articles.--Aldux 23:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had no intention to wait for 2 months for a discussion, I was WP:BOLD. Anyway, I'm open for new ideas here. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's OK. But I have to disagree on what previous said; I'm the only one around here, and it's not very polite to say I take 2 months to awnser a discussion, which seems to me also unjust.--Aldux 23:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that was my feeling before, I didn't know how often are you here, sorry. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Motivation?[edit]

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)[reply]

absolutely true, someone should fill in the "background" section --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag as Current Event?[edit]

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)[reply]

Name change[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I actually preferred the original name, though I'd accept "Chadian Civil War (2005–present)" instead. —Nightstallion 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chad gunmen.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Massive copyright problems[edit]

De Administrando Imperio (talk · contribs) (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)[reply]

Copyright problem[edit]

‎ This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chadian_Civil_War_(2005–2010)&oldid=1195360951"