Talk:Rapid Support Forces

ref(s) for Yemeni civil war involvement

https://jamestown.org/program/sudans-controversial-rapid-support-forces-bolsters-saudi-efforts-yemen/ seems like a good, reasonably NPOV, reference. Boud (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

July 31, 2019: I'm thinking of removing an unsupported sentence in Rapid Support Forces (a sentence that, coincidentally, also needs rapid support, hee, hee). In the section: Yemeni Civil War, someone from network site:31.216.0.210 contributed this sentence: "Also there evidences that there is many peoples from Boko Haram has joined to Rapid Forces to help Yemen war." on 3 July 2019‎. Actually, not so much "contributed" as "shoehorned" in front of existing references (gaining only waning, albeit very rapid, support). After searching the four references and the web, I couldn't find supporting evidence for this statement. I tried and failed. I'm: User:Jeffreydavidspeck talk and I'll remove this (one) sentence: "Also, there is evidence that many people from Boko Haram have joined the Rapid Forces in order to fight in Yemen." (after having rewritten it) in about a week unless I hear different. (Done. My first delete on Wikipedia! But this isn't my area of expertise, anyway.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreydavidspeck (talk • contribs) 8:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

refs for RSF business interests

These may be useful:

• 2017 report summary https://web.archive.org/web/20190722215411/https://enoughproject.org/reports/sudans-deep-state-how-insiders-violently-privatized-sudans-wealth-and-how-respond and full pdf - https://web.archive.org/web/20190722215429/https://enoughproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SudansDeepState_Final_Enough.pdf

Boud (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Make this thread trusted editors only

Keeps getting vandalized 2600:1700:9125:C010:E989:1C6:CDDC:CE45 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RVAN for a guide to how to handle vandalism and how to suggest page semiprotection if that seems to be justified. My impression from a quick glance is that currently IP editors (like yourself) are doing more good edits than vandalism. Boud (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Human rights violations by the Rapid Support Forces (Sudan) into Rapid Support Forces

There doesn't seem to be a need for a stand-alone article. Human rights violations can be discussed in the primary article per WP:CFORK. gobonobo ^{+ c} 11:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge: for now, as the current article does not even scratch the surface when it comes to the - very well documented - human rights violations conducted by the RSF. Not to slam the author but you could have just paraphrased stuff from Khartoum massacre, 2023 Sudan conflict, Yemeni civil war (2014–present) and Darfur war and that would have made the article acceptable. I think once the section of violation gets big enough it can be then moved to a separate article. Happy to collaborate FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge. Per nom. The Night Watch (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge. Agree, the issues could just be a subtopic. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 00:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel supports RSF

I think you forgot Israel’s support for the RSF. Please add this up.. Ahmad.R.K (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Source? FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is completely unsubstantiated and should be removed from the article. Even the cited source acknowledges the Israeli arms were likely received from sources other than the IDF 2620:CC:8000:1C83:FD97:649F:8E6A:5852 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done removed FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s been added again, Israel is listed as an ally of the RSF. The citation links to a random article where an RSF commander defended Israel in their war with Gaza, it has nothing to do with Israel supporting the RSF. This seems to be a repeated attempt at misinformation to suggest Israel is allied with the RSF which so set has no evidence. 2601:148:4380:43D0:3D48:EECC:B989:894D (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye out. I removed the edit FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Logo change section

The word 'Quds' in the logo was simply an acronym for the Rapid Support Forces in Arabic, which coincidentally shares the same spelling as the Arabic word for Jerusalem. The section attempts to draw connections between this acronym and relations with Israel, but there is no reliable evidence to support this claim. Therefore, I suggest removing the section, as it is redundant and the logo change isn't significant enough to warrant its own section. Anwon (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that the 'Quds' part is still present on RSF's Twitter and their Official site. There are many variations of RSF logo in use such as this one where the text is put into the Sudanese flag. Anwon (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

that section is well sourced. Unless you have problem with sources or have reliable sources that support your point, it will be hard to remove that section. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

UAE deniying Support for RSF is not mentioned

UAE deniying Support for RSF is not mentioned. This need to be added to the article body. 2001:8F8:1129:87C4:5843:A86F:6BA5:7FCB (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

source? FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on Houthis needed

There seems to be contradicting info on the Houthi's relationship to the RSF. They are listed as allies, but placed under the opponents category. I was going to remove them completely, as there is no source given, but I figured it would be better to ask first. 206.209.126.241 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

They were opponents when the RSF was part of the Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war. I am not sure when they became allies or this is just a mistake FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

"Anti-black racism" in the info-box?

What's the deal with this? It isn't currently sourced. RSF members look pretty black to me from a quick web search. I feel that perhaps people are misconstruing the ethnic targeting of non-arabized African tribes as being 'anti-black'. I feel something like 'Arab supremacy' would be more appropriate if editors are labelling the group anti-black for the aforementioned reason. Donenne (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that is the case, it also used in Janjaweed and Murahleen. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The new source that has since been provided illustrates my point. From the source:

Arbab said that sometimes members of her Bargo ethnic group were spared violence, and sometimes they weren’t. “The militia tested us [darker skinned people] on our language,” she said. “If you could speak Bargo then sometimes you were let go. If you couldn’t, you were killed.”

The Bargo speak different languages (Arabic, and their more indigenous Bura Mabang). This is why they were being tested, they were being tested for whether they could speak Arabic or as the individual in the source describes, 'Bargo'. You would suspect that if the RSF were simply anti-black that they then would not care what language the Bargo would speak. Sure, the RSF seem to have a propensity to target dark-skinned Sudanese/African tribes in Sudan. But they're not being targeted because they are darker, the RSF is not the Ku Klux Klan. These groups are being targeted because they don't speak Arabic or are not from a fellow western nomadic Arab tribe in Sudan ('Attawah). All tribes that predominately make up the RSF (Misseriya, Salamat and Rizeigat) fit a description of being 'black'. This is why saying the group are tribalists and 'Arab supremacists' makes more sense. Donenne (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It surely does. I amended the page and other pre-RSE militias pages FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that Donenne (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Turkey

Iran is listed as an opponent of the RSF due to the transfer of drones and equipment but would that also then apply to Turkey as well who has supplied the SAF with similar equipment? Source here for details [1] Donenne (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I should add another source, as Iran is an opponents since the Yemen civil war as supported Houthis and the UAE deployed the RSF during the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, see [2].

Going back to your points, if we add Turkey for supplying weaponry I think then we will end up adding many other counties like China and CFR, and maybe South Sudan as they also supply weapons. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed it to avoid WP:RS as Iran being an opponent is a conjecture at best FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Donenne (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)