Talk:Rapid Support Forces

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)

It's back 2A0D:6FC7:600:B4E5:5E75:4ED9:F9F6:B591 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2025 (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)

Turkey

Turkey should be listed as opponent. 2601:248:5181:A890:54D5:C767:5032:125A (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Equipment tab.

Needs an equipment tab to list out suppliers. This is listed in the SAF wiki page. 2601:248:5181:A890:54D5:C767:5032:125A (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Zamzam atrocities

not mentioned in this article. Guardian report today (Mark Townsend) describes in detail offences in this camp in April 2025. Incident has been hushed up in UK political circles Gemmarajade (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Update on Wagner–RSF alliance status

Wagner was historically an RSF ally, but reliable sources show Russia officially shifted support to the Sudanese Armed Forces in mid-2024 for a Port Sudan naval base deal. The article should reflect this timeline change. 2601:640:8B00:A0A0:2025:C839:9C83:B6 (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Wagner a non-state ally?

This is not elaborated on anywhere in the article, and is contradicted by the cited source—"there has been no evidence of Wagner activity in Sudan for two years…".

Wagner has since been absorbed by the Ministry of Defense of Russia, which has shifted allegiances towards the government of Sudan. My.fr1end.g00 (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Secular and anti-Islamism allegations

RSF was created as a proxy force for Omar AL-Bashir's Islamist dictatorship https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rapid-Support-Forces

Their leader Hemedti has 4 wives, which signals non-secular orientation. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/world/africa/sudan-leader-hemeti.html

They are neither Islamist or Anti-Islamist, its strictly an Arab nomadic supremacist militia, and their pretense of secularism is only meant to garner western support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud882 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Your arguments are clearly original research, please cite a source to support your claims. Hemedti having four wives is completely irrelevant to secularism. Also, Hemedti has openly declared to have an anti-Islamist orientation, which the sources mentioned in the article cite. There's a reason the anti-Islamist UAE is supporting the group. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Its a widely known fact that Omar Al-Bashir's Islamist government created the RSF, and the source is already provided. And you are mistaken, the RSF decided to adopt an anti-Islamist stance due to UAE interference, not vice versa.

https://sudanevents.com/index.php/2025/06/09/who-turned-the-rapid-support-forces-into-a-western-secular-project/.

The RSF is just an opportunist nomadic milita with no cohesive ideology other than being Arab suprecmastics, think of it as if Abu Shabab's Popular forces had massive funding and arms, their historical alliance and cooperation with Al-Bashir (an Islamist dictator) who empowered them (Janjaweed under hemedti) to fight rebels in Darfur (2003 onward) Source, proves just that. I believe that the "secular" and "Anti-Islamist" section should be removed because these they are simply not core ideologies for the movement, It also goes without saying that their opponents "SAF" are backed by Egypt, Which is strictly anti-Islamist. The entire "Islamist-Secularist" dichotomy, is just not that relevant to this conflict, its a conflict between the interests of UAE, and other regional powers, with the UAE legaltimizing itself by claiming that "SAF" is backed by the MB, while "RSF" Fights for an egalitarian and secular government, Check Amgad Fareid Eltayeb, CEO of the Sudanese think tank Fikra for Studies and Development Statement And its absolutely unimaginable that any Secular leader would have 4 wives, or at least pretty oxymoron. Mahmoud882 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for giving another source which proves my point! The article 'Who Turned the Rapid Support Forces into a Western Secular Project?' literally explains how the RSF became anti-Islamist and that "The UAE managed to alienate Hemeti and the RSF from the Islamists and national forces, driving a wedge between them. Hemeti even publicly declared war on both nationalist and Islamist elements, famously rejecting Sheikh Al-Tayeb Al-Jed’s initiative after it had been finalized." The RSF supporting Omar al-Bashir before is insignificant as they rebelled against al-Bashir's successors and the RSF officially distances itself from al-Bashir now. With that saying, your point about the SAF being backed by anti-Islamist Egypt is correct. When did I mention the SAF is Islamist and not secular? Both of these forces seem to be anti-Islamist and secular; most of the issue seems to be a tribalistic conflict rather than a religious one. However, it is important to note, based on the sources provided, that the RSF claims to be anti-Islamist and secular. Whether they truly believe in these ideologies is up to them, but for now, I've added a "stated ideology" for the RSF. Nevertheless, Hemedti having four wives is again irrelevant. Secularism is a political philosophy that seeks to separate religion from affairs of the state, not of the private individual. Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is known to be a devout Muslim; however the Turkish government remains secular. Similarly, Hemedti may or may not be a devout Muslim but that has nothing to do with affairs of the RSF. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The main take from this article is pretty much that Hemedti has no coherect political ideology, and that was exploited by the UAE.

"What distinguished the secular and leftist forces and their foreign allies was their persistence in exploiting Hemeti’s wavering positions—until he fully joined their camp in a coalition of bloodshed, war, and the April 15, 2023 coup aimed at seizing power"

This was done through UAE's backing Youssef Ezzat's secular faction.

"it’s crucial to understand that the most influential project affecting the RSF and leading it to its current ruin was the leftist project spearheaded by Youssef Ezzat on behalf of others. He convinced the RSF leader to adopt this leftist secular agenda, leveraging General Hemeti’s immense influence as the RSF commander. This project had external support, most notably from the United Arab Emirates."

But Youssef Ezzat was dismissed later on and now believes that Islamists have inflitriated the RSF.

" Youssef Ezzat, claims that the Islamic Movement transformed the war into a tribal conflict in western Sudan. He alleges this was done by infiltrating RSF ranks with its cadres"

By the way this also undermines your source in the main page, which includes only one quote from Youssef Ezzat regarding the secular orientation of the RSF, but Ezzat now claims that the movement became inflitrated by the Islamists.

And Hemedti's history is absolutely significant, for his alliance with the Islamist government stood for decades, his moves later on were opportunistic rather than ideological. Mahmoud882 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, that is Youssef Ezzat's personal analysis on the situation and since he's an ex-RSF advisor so it may have neutrality issues. Al-Bashir was also not only allied to the RSF but also several other organizations and militias, many of whom were not Islamist, but again, the RSF now does not associate itself with al-Bashir's ideologies so how is his decades-old governance relevant now for the RSF? And also, again, there are numerous sources that cite the RSF claim's to be anti-Islamists. Do you have any argument against the sources cited that claim RSF is anti-Islamist? Because nearly all of them are WP:RS and are highly reliable on the topic. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

My argument here is that these aren't core ideologies of the RSF, which is supported by the sources I've provided.

And I meant Hemedti in the last sentence, not Al-Bashir. Mahmoud882 (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems we won't reach an agreement here and that's cool. Let's hope for anyone else to share their thoughts. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mahmoud882, here responding to a 3O request. Since Wazir Pakhteen was blocked for socking, this dispute is effectively moot (although a few other people have discussed similar matters below it appears). I will say though in any case that I've looked through your sources and a couple others and I agree with what you're saying; on top of what you've cited, in this SWP interview with human rights advocate Amgad Fareid Eltayeb he describes the RSF as "fascist," and this New Yorker article by journalist Nicolas Niarchos describes them as "Arab supremacist" and Hemedti as motivated more than anything by business concerns. No one seems to think the claims of any among their ranks of them being secular or anti-Islamist or having Islamist members or whatever are credible evidence of a deeply-held political/religious orientation on their part—I don't get an impression of them having much of a fixed ideology beyond Arab supremacy really. To the extent that high-ranking members make such claims and they get covered in reliable sources, I think it's probably worth mentioning in the main body of this article, especially anything widely reported or that goes on for a while, but I definitely don't think there's support for describing them as "secular" or "anti-Islamist" in an unqualified way (if anything people seem to claim, in line with what you've said, that they've publicly taken positions like this superficially, simply to please the UAE, try to court the U.S., etc.). I want to suggest that people who are inclined to add those terms to the infobox might look a little deeper and not be too reliant on single sources, nor too inclined to take the RSF at their word (especially since they seem like skilled propagandists). 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated, it’s honestly baffling how many people consider them secular. That characterization is completely misplaced. This isn’t the PFLP, which operates within a distinctly Marxist and therefore secular framework, nor is it the SDF, which governs historically secular regions and was founded on explicitly secular principles. The RSF has never espoused any meaningful secular ideology, their leader having four wives alone is an absolutely oxymoron for a secular leader to have, its akin to an Islamist leader having a bikini wearing wife, even if its not the best indication there is, its still an important sign nonetheless, There is nothing in the organization’s history, ideology, or structure that suggests any genuine form of secularism.

That said I appreciate your work on the ideology section, very well written and detailed, I just hope we don't see more disruption in the thread. Mahmoud882 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad you feel that way. I also hope things settle down here some, although given the amount of coverage this topic area appears to be getting in the international media right now it might be unlikely. I wonder too why so many people seem as ready as they are to accept that the RSF is secular now; wishful thinking might play a role. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 01:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The RSF is statedly anti-Islamist though, we shouldn’t “assume” they have hidden intentions, that’s not our place TenghuiHadath (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it uncontroversial to say that the UAE is "anti-islamist"? I would have thought that they're anti-islamist in some ways, and islamist in other ways. Or is the commonly accepted definition of "islamism" less ambiguous than I think? If not, it might be misleading to say without qualification that either the UAE or RSF are "anti-islamist" in the lede. What about something like "oppose the Muslim Brotherhood"? Does that get more to the core of it? Ornilnas (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The ideologies listed in the infobox should be, as it was before El Fasher was captured, Arab supremacy, secularism, and tribalism, and the sources for those ideologies should be restored along with them. I don't know why people feel the need to remove that information. Holden3172 (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Arab supremacy is still listed as an ideology, but the source cited for it, which was from a great Guardian article, was removed, why? The Guardian is a newspaper of record and is considered reliable by Wikipedia. Holden3172 (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The source is still used at the end of the next sentence. You could move it back to the first sentence, or copy it -- but ultimately it's not supposed to be in the lede in the first place. All of this should be written about in the body, sourced, and then referenced in the lede. Ornilnas (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean next sentence? The infobox doesn't have sentences, it's fast facts. As to your point, no, I don't think reliable sources and critical pieces of information (like their ideology) should be removed from the infobox only because it is also in the body. Holden3172 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the lede. And I didn't mean to imply that information should be removed from any place. I'm not sure what the standard for using citations in the infobox is. Perhaps it's more accepted than using citations in the lede? But if the information is present in the body and sourced there, I imagine the source doesn't need to be in the infobox as well. Ornilnas (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ornilnas, @Holden3172, I think the more important point is that the lead (including the infobox) should be a summary of what appears in the article body per MOS:INTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article...the lead summarizes the points of the body and the body provides elaboration on those points."

Right now, the text in the article body doesn't support a plain, unqualified designation of the RSF as anti-Islamist, nor do I really think it should—there may be some sources that characterize them that way but there are others that characterize them quite differently and even call the credibility of such claims into doubt. We can (and should) describe this in the article body to the extent that we're covering reliable sources, but because the sources conflict, I don't think it adequately represents the whole of the available sources to simply call them anti-Islamist as a core part of their ideology in the infobox; the situation appears to be more complicated than that. If the article body eventually comes to strongly support such a designation, then it would make sense, but right now I think that could only result from cherry-picking sources, and in any case the body doesn't appear to support it at present so it's premature regardless.

On the contrary, at least judging from sources, their characterization as Arab supremacist seems airtight; I have yet to see a single source that credibly calls that into question, and in fact they seem to be often described as a purely fascist-style ethno-nationalist Arab supremacist organization without any other fixed ideology. However, the article body currently appears to give scanty support for that too at present, even though there appears to be plenty of reliable sources to that effect and little-to-none that really condradict or question it.

Given all this, I want to suggest that we should focus on the body right now, leave the lead (infobox included) alone for the time being except to maybe remove anything that isn't covered more fully in the body, and update it as needed while the body grows, because the body clearly doesn't give full coverage of everything we can glean from the available RS right now and that's more the central issue.

I'm going to go ahead and start an "Ideology" section in the article where we can explore this topic in sufficient depth. I welcome y'all to work on it too. Let's use it as the basis for these kinds of claims in the lead (infobox or otherwise).

As a side note, per MOS:LEADCITE, we're encouraged to add citations to the lead as needed to directly support material that's actively being challenged or likely to be challenged. However, it's common for leads to contain few-to-no citations because well-sourced support for everything they say can be found in the article body; generally you see citations in the lead when it would otherwise get a lot of churn from people that are ignoring the article body. That may ultimately be necessary here. However, the body needs to come first in any case. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 23:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

How would we begin a section covering their ideology? Maybe noting that because of their roots in the Janjaweed, they are known for discrimination and violence against Black ethnic minorities and are accused of genocide against them? Holden3172 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Once I finish getting it started (I'm working on it right now) you can at least see how I'm approaching it, if you'd like an example. You're welcome to make your own edits of course. I definitely think that should be mentioned there, to the extent that it shines light on their political orientation. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 00:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I just want to note as I'm reading through sources, I think this article would also seriously benefit from a proper history section, which it currently lacks. There are major figures and events in their history (e.g. in relation to Omar al-Bashir) that currently aren't covered in the article at all or only in passing. As with so many geopolitical topics, exploring their history in-depth shines a lot of light on their nature. I'm mentioning some of what I've found in what I'm writing for the ideology section since it helps clarify their politics, but being able to cover it chronologically as history would give the material a lot more room to breathe and stretch its legs. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 01:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I finished putting it together. I have to say, I didn't find any credible outside sources characterizing them as genuinely secular or anti-Islamist, only widespread skepticism on both points. Commentators seem to universally describe both positions as merely taken out of convenience, superficially, and with strong ulterior motives. I'm open to describing either as more under debate if we can actually find sufficient RS to justify that, but on both counts it really seems like an example of the RSF vs. everyone else from what I've seen so far.

On that basis, unless we ultimately do get a significantly different picture, I think it's fine if we describe the RSF as casting themselves in these kinds of terms (although I haven't actually found a source directly quoting anyone from the RSF describing them as "anti-Islamist" verbatim, just as adopting an aggressive posture towards Islamists in recent years). However, I think it's important that we distinguish between what they've said about themselves and what outside observers have said in response. For example, I wouldn't necessarily object to putting something in the infobox under the ideology heading like "Secularism (stated)" to make it clear that it's only something they've said about themselves, but I don't necessarily think we should just put claims like that in the lead with the same weight as given to Arab supremacism, since the latter reflects the consensus found in RS and the former does not.

As a side note, I more-or-less agree with @Socialwave597's recent edit summary concerning the RSF's ethnic posture, except to note that we have multiple RS that describe them explicitly as "Arab supremacist", so even if that's not very precise I don't think it's really our place to totally deny that characterization (otherwise I feel like it would cross the line into OR). I'm happy if we note that there are RS that dispute that characterization if we have them though. I concur that describing the RSF as "anti-Black racists" is not exactly well-supported in those specific terms; not only have I not come across RS that directly describes them that way, but I also worry that it would be imposing an American view of race on the circumstances even to the extent that the RSF may exhibit explicit prejudice towards people based on darkness of skin. In any case the edit in question was made while I was in the middle of editing so I haven't seen it until now; I'll take a look at the cited source. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 06:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian article doesn't mention Arab nationalism nor supremacy (although I won't deny their might be other reliable sources that describe the RSF as such), the article describes the Afro-Arabs of the RSF targeting the Masalits (who are probably on average, slightly darker than Baggara Afro-Arabs) for being of a different culture that they look down on and see as a threat to their herding, wealth, and power. I see your point in that the RSF's bigotry and hatred are probably more so the product of those other factors than the Furs (who weren't directly mentioned in that Guardian article), Masalits, and other minorities being slightly darker skinned. Considering the extremism of their actions, Arab supremacy might be a better term than Arab nationalism, but I am not sure which more reliable sources have used, most of the articles I have read on this war haven't touched on the exact ideology of the RSF. Holden3172 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

My point, aside from how we should stick closely to what RS say, is that the term "Black" is very rough and imprecise when deployed in this context; for instance if you look at the article Racism in Sudan it discusses how "Western" conceptions of Blackness don't map cleanly onto the Sudanese racial landscape (nor do they necessarily apply to any other part of the world, I might add, nor do even American ideas about those things necessarily apply everywhere in Europe, etc.). If we try to draw conclusions about these things just from considering the color of the skin of the people involved on our own, we're basically doomed to bring our own biases into the picture wrongly. This is one of many reasons why we should stick closely to RS.

As for sources that explicitly characterize the RSF as Arab supremacist, you're welcome to look at the section I added. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 08:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, okay, I read the article cited by Socialwave597 and now I feel like I was jumping the gun about the Arab supremacist vs. specifically Baggara stuff. Zaidan does not actually dispute the characterization of the RSF as Arab supremacist but rather seeks to expand the picture of the RSF's motivations beyond merely this:

Some analysts have suggested that Arab supremacy ideology is the driving force behind ethnic-based recruitment; this paper by contrast argues that multiple factors have contributed to the RSF’s recruitment of non-Sudanese Arab fighters in the current war. Arab supremacy ideology, land disputes, desertification, and local and regional interventions all contributed to the emergence of ethno-mercenarism in the Sahel. (pgs. 3–4)

Furthermore, he does not describe the RSF as exclusively Baggara:

The RSF’s ability to draw fighters from Chad, Niger, and Libya rests on longstanding kinship structures and patterns of nomadic migration that predate modern state boundaries. These Arab tribes – particularly the Baggara and Abbala – have sustained centuries of mobility, pastoralism, trade, and intermarriage across vast distances, weaving a dense web of social relations that has proved highly resilient to the region’s fragmented sovereignties. (pg. 10)

Even if the RSF has enacted violence against some Arab groups, that alone does not give us grounds to dispute their characterization as "Arab supremacist", especially without direct support from RS; things are not always so clean. Furthermore, this source does not support characterizing them as having a "Baggara interests" ideology—on the contrary, the entire focus of the article is to defend a picture of the RSF as "ethno-mercenarist", i.e. fueled by a complex mixture of broadly Arab ethnic/tribal ties and allegiances, a pattern of treating war as "work" as opposed to "rupture" and paying accordingly, a willingness to recruit and fight across borders and along ethnic lines, and an opportunistic capitalization on environmental crises, patronage from state and corporate actors in the larger region, and the decay of local government and traditional tribal power networks. I'll add to the "Ideology" section accordingly. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 08:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have zero problem with the term Arab supremacist being added. Socialwave597 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you still think they should be characterized as having a "Baggara interests" ideology? "The RSF is a Baggara ethno-nationalist militia that ethnically cleanses any ethnicity that is not them, nothing more then that" is a strong claim. If you have any sources that directly support that picture, I would agree that the article should fairly represent them. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 01:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You pointed out yourself that the RSF have soldiers that are not Baggara, however, that in of itself does not predclude them from representing Baggara interests. I'm not sure. Holden3172 (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, that's possible, but we need sources. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 23:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Just coming back here to note that, honestly, it is not possible. Up until now I've been thinking of the "Baggara interests" idea more in terms of "maybe there are signs that the RSF is more specifically Baggara supremacist than Arab supremacist". I would still say maybe, except that we still have not seen any sources to that effect. However, the word "interests" actually has a really different connotation here—it suggests that the RSF are working on behalf of all Baggara, that the Baggara as a whole are served by the actions of the RSF, and perhaps even that they all endorse the RSF. No way. Until now I haven't really considered the connotations of the phrasing enough.

No one can represent the interests of an entire ethnic group at once—there's just too many people involved and they'll have too many different views and desires—and frankly, the idea that a group like the RSF is doing that is a cruel statement to make. Imagine if you were Baggara and someone said that to you! If we had a source where someone expressed that view, it would inevitably be an expression of their opinion—no responsible journalist would say something like that in a pure news article, nor would an academic attempt to defend that idea in a respected journal, etc.—so if they were sufficiently notable, we could mention it in the article explicitly attributed to them, but it would obviously not represent any kind of neutral or well-reasoned analysis of the RSF. I'm not suprised that we haven't seen a single source that says something like that. If you search "Baggara interests" on Google you get a single result that maybe isn't directly referencing this article, and it's a Reddit post. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 02:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You argued your point convincingly. Also, well done on the ideological section, you were able to put out a lot of details in short order. Ultimately, defining their ideology is tricky since the RSF are ultimately greedy mercenaries who fight for the highest bidder, not ideologues with sincere beliefs. I noticed in the ideological section, there's a reference to the RAF which I am assuming is supposed to refer to the RSF, so I am going to fix that. In the infobox, The Cultural Saracenian removed tribalism, arguing that it is not a real ideology, but it might be more accurate than Baggara interests for the reason you stated. Holden3172 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah, it is hard, although, as always, I think just summing up what the RS that talk about their beliefs and motives say is all we really need to do. The picture the sources give is, I think it's fair to say, mixed; the RSF don't necessarily have a sincere, self-stated ideology that drives their actions across the board, and there's certainly much evidence for their activities having a strongly business-driven quality and a lot of people probably join first and foremost to have a paying job, but of course at the same time their forces have committed widespread and dramatic atrocities against non-Arab groups just as the Janjaweed did, so I can understand why commentators want to call a spade a spade there. They are weird though in how little they seem to have sincere, consistently-held beliefs of any sort, although they wouldn't be the first political group like that; I didn't put it in the infobox but on that basis I can understand Eltayeb calling them fascist.

You're right about the RAF → RSF point, that was just my fingers doing the wrong thing. Good catch and thank you. It would probably change the situation if the Royal Air Force was involved, yeah.

I kind of share the feeling that "Tribalism" doesn't really express a clear ideology—like, at least at first blush I'm not really sure what that means—but if we have some good RS that use that language and explain it, we can add it. As always we need sources; it's not something I've come across in RS at this point. In any case, we know at this point that the RSF is ethnically heterogeneous so I definitely don't want to play into the idea that they're "all of one tribe" or something like that.

I rather like Zaidan's "ethno-mercenarism" because I feel like it does a good job of expressing that Arab supremacist beliefs, kinship ties and ethnic allegiances, and economic motivations (business interests for the leaders, desire to find work in harsh times for the recruits) all work together to drive people to join and help to create the group's identity. I know the term "ethno-mercenarist" is a little opaque too at first blush, but Zaidan explains it really well I think. Someone below had reservations because he's the only one that's used that terminology so far, but at least he's been published in two different places with articles about it, and there are other sources that say really similar stuff—e.g. this BBC article:

"They are a new kind of regime: a hybrid of ethnic militia and business enterprise, a transnational mercenary force that has captured a state."

or this article by Sudanese journalist Reem Abbas:

"The RSF, however, depends on two main pillars economically: the first, is that it is a business owned and utilized by Hemedti’s family. As a result, the RSF’s top commanders are Hemedti’s siblings and the main players in the RSF’s business ventures are also his direct family members. Second, the RSF has a broad socio-ethnic base of nomadic tribes in Western Sudan due its composition along ethnic lines and this makes the force very loyal to Hemedti whose work intersects with the interests of their communities and their ability to survive in difficult terrains.

"There are several ways that the RSF makes money. Aboelgheit’s investigation features a quote by Hemedti himself on the matter: 'People ask where do we [the RSF] bring this money from? We have the salaries of our troops fighting [abroad] and our gold investments, money from gold, and other investments.'"

(As a side note, I realize Abbas does use the term "interests" there, but I think it's fair to say that the idea that Hemedti's activities "[intersect] with the interests" of specific communities is much more measured and nuanced, and likely to be accurate, than the idea that the RSF stands first and foremost for the interests of all Baggara—she doesn't even refer to the Baggara in the article etc. Also, these two sources might be good to add more to the business interests and history sections with.)

Anyway, do you personally think that these sources + Zaidan's two articles seem like enough to support their characterization as "ethno-mercenarist"? It seems to me like the nicest way of summing these kinds of pictures up, and the term is from an international relations academic if not in wide use already. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 04:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think ethno-mercenarism is a completely reasonable characterization both because it is used by academic sources and othe reliable sources, and because it is in line with what we know about the RSF: they're mercenaries (that's why they went to fight in Yemen), and the only thing that makes them super passionate is their hatred for ethnic minorities. I think Baggara interests should be replaced with ethno-mercenarism based on the argument you have made.

Tangentially, I think what we put in this article actually has the ability to influence wider use. This article is the first result if you Google "Rapid Support Forces", and for many other topics, the Wikipedia article is the first Google result. Some people, even journalists, use Wikipedia for quick fact-checking, which has lead to circular reporting. I wonder if the term "ethno-mercenarism/mercenarist" could appear more on the internet because of us. Holden3172 (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems that lots has changed in the article in the past couple of weeks, can you take a look at it? the top section in particular has many unsourced claims, and it seemed that another user has insisted on adding the secular orientation without referring to the talk section. Mahmoud882 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Israel as an ally - no sources

Israel is repeatedly added as an ally to rsf, @Redworld17 keeps adding it with irrelevant sources. Since there is no serious source saying this, it looks as if someone chose to add Israel as an ally, and then adds whatever sources come out of a google search, regardless of validity. 77.125.76.245 (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by saying that I 'keep adding it', I have only edited this page once (technically twice to fix the formatting of my initial edit). Redworld17 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The vandalism is from @ReiPeixe and @Skitash 2600:1700:5F2D:F000:E338:5DD0:A416:3753 (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

the references for Israel’s alleged support of RSF are to two news articles, neither of which are particularly convincing 2001:569:5899:F600:1155:4B1E:73B4:5424 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I've now removed five different sources from the infobox that were used to support the Israel-RSF alliance. None of them claimed at all that they were actually allies. I'm sure there are articles out there that make the claim (with or without good evidence), so I wish people would just use those instead of wasting everyone's time. Ornilnas (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Since there's no evidence, can you remove the claim? As far as I can tell the only "alleged" alliance is being alleged by Wikipedia vandalism. 2600:1700:5F2D:F000:E338:5DD0:A416:3753 (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be better, but clearly many editors disagree, so I thought a "citation needed" was a better compromise for now. Ornilnas (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If there are any WP:RS, then better first start the subsection Rapid Support Forces#Israel (with ===...===) within Rapid Support Forces#Foreign relations in the body of the article, so that a proper editorial debate can take place on the quality and notability of the information. After (if) that stabilises, a repeat reference can be used in the infobox. Boud (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Rapid Support Forces#Israel - section started. Not strong enough to describe IL as an ally - just one visit by Mossad in Jan 2022. Boud (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that the section is WP:DUE in showing some sort of ongoing relation between Israeli authorities and the RSF. I'll leave it to infobox people to decide if that justifies the word "ally" in the infobox. All three refs have ref labels for re-use if needed. Boud (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that "Haaretz_flight_predator_EU_notorious" would be justified under the heading "Israel". Haaretz itself puts "EU" in the title. This is rather the case of a relation between the RSF and a murky mercenary-private-spyware organisation/network that has a link to some former Israeli military people. Possibly a section "===Non-state actors===" could be added to include the Cytrox/Intellexa connection as a non-state actor. Boud (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended Confirmed Protection

Because of the Civil war in Sudan, this page is subjected to vandalism for the past few days. So administrators should considered Extended Confirmed Protection for this page. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Before Al-Fashir fell, there was much less activity on the page. It was getting updated once every few days. Media basically completely ignored the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) as a whole and not many people took sides. It wasn't like Russo-Ukrainian war or Gaza war where large amounts of people on both sides were trying to manipulate information - any page on those two conflicts has always been high up in the protection levels.

That is until the city finally fell and suddenly a lot of people started caring about Sudan (based on how many edits and new things are being added to this page every day). It doesn't seem like there are many RSF bots trying to whitewash the info...yet. I agree adding some sort of protection to the page would be helpful. Ee100duna (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

One advantage of extended-confirmed protection is that it would ameliorate the daily edit warring over the "Ideology" section of the infobox, which has mostly been carried on by autoconfirmed accounts and with new participants arriving frequently. I kind of dread what it will be like to try to keep that stable once the discussion about it here settles out. I'm sympathetic to how autoconfirmed users who are contributing productively might feel about that though (it's probably not a coincidence that Ragnarvrollo and I are comfortable with extended-confirmed protection since both of us are extended confirmed). ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 09:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I saw you replied to my request for page protection and realised it would have better if I had replied to this topic first. Let me just quickly expain.

I don't recall specific disruptions, but recognised a pattern and decided to be proactive. I considered ECR to be way too heavy-handed (it may be partly because I do not have EC rights, although I hope I was not too biased) and even had some second thoughts about the restriction I ended up suggesting as there were many IP/new account contributions which were not distruptive, and even some very good ones.

A few days prior, a similar request was actually denied.

My request was successful and the page is now semi protected for just under two weeks.

I now regret not starting at the bottom step of the protection ladder: Pending changes protection. I have found that to be a very comfortable restriction and I thinkit especially suits a case like this one, where there are many unregistered good (-faith) contributions but there is still a need to control the edits.

I wanted to propose, if you agree, that we ask to downgrade the protections to pc if the conditions allow. Or alternatively, that we re-evaluate after the current protections have expired. Thank you and happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

My feeling is we should probably see how this goes for at least a few more days just to get a sense of what it's like this way right now before we would do anything like that, since the protections have only been in place for a day and it's a little hard to get a sense of the overall effect it's having yet (although I will note that the edits that have been applied to the page since they were put on all look constructive to me at a brief glance). It's worth remembering that the admin was using their personal judgement in what protections to apply and for how long. I think it's a fair guess that the increase in vandalism and such is driven by media coverage and discussions on social networks etc. (I even saw someone with thousands of followers on Twitter complaining about the ideology section of the infobox at the end of last month, and their tweet got over 400 retweets...). That can come and go, so it's hard to say what conditions will be like over time.

Something else worth noting maybe about pending changes vs. semi-protected is that in the case of pending changes, it's on pending changes reviewers to check the protected-against edits, whereas with semi-protected, it's basically our job (since people will come and request changes on the talk page). One advantage of semi-protected is that the people who keep an eye on the article and talk page have a better idea of what the overall situation is with this article and what sorts of changes might be reasonable; for someone who's never looked at the article before, some of the instances of vandalism we've had might be a little hard to suss out (things like changing "anti-Islamist" to "Islamist", filling in erroneous names for prominent positions, etc.—things that are kind of on the edge between vandalism and just someone being confused or having controversial views or the like). I don't know if that was part of the consideration here or not of course, but it would make sense to me if it was. Some articles get persistent, obviously silly vandalism from unregistered/new users, and those pages seem to me like more ideal candidates for pending changes protection, although again I don't know what the thinking was behind the decision here. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 00:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

MMMMMM, I am not sure I share your view. In fact, I may have one that completely inverts your arguments. The first sentence of the second paragraph especially makes me wonder:

Edit requests are handled by volunteers, including and in my experience, mostly, by people who have no experience editing the specific article or topic in general. The way I arrived at this article and remembered I forgot to leave a message in general was an edit request actually and my knowledge of the subject is rather limited, to put it mildly.

A major downside in my view of semi-protection is that edit requests can scare off well-intentioned editors because they are more arduous. They are also more likely to be rejected (from my experience responding to requests: my default is to deny the request unless it is very obvious what was intended and that this satisfies the considerations for edit requests). Edit requests are also just narrower in scope in general. Potentially controversial edits are excluded entirely. Editors making such requests are then instructed to establish a consensus on the talk page.

This just increases the number of edits on the talk page as a simple change will have to be explained to one person, but likely in some cases (controversial ones) to at least to two more.

Pending changes also allows you to, if you are quick enough, stop a bad edit by reverting the edit to the last accepted revision before any other edit is made. (Only possible in the case where all pending changes are ones you want to revert/prevent) (In that case, it no longer needs to be reviewed. And anyone except admins, including the IP/unregistered/new editors, can do this so self reverts and constructive anti-vandalism support from unregistered editors will help, which I did see happening on the page prior to making my rewuest. (Actually kind of beautiful to see anonymous editors policing/correcting each other) )

I will grant you the point about the controversial stuff. That would argue in favour of a restriction that forces editors to make requests. (as this screens out all controversial edits or (rare in my experience) forces them to discuss on the talk page prior to requesting.

Sidenote, do you have any idea if the person you mentioned tweeted about this was warned that canvassing is not allowed? I recently read an ArbCom case that included canvassing and if possible, I think we should aim to avoid what happened there. Slomo666 (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that either of the things we're saying really conflict. Like, I think it's fair to say that if someone posts an edit request on an article talk page, some of the people who see it will be regular contributors to the article. Then again, what you say is true as well, that people who arrive and address the request may not necessarily know much about the article. Also, I don't disagree that semi-protection can scare off unregistered/new editors; that's pretty clearly true, although to some extent that's kind of its purpose a little (when a lot of the unregistered/new editor activity is disruptive). It's also a downside though, certainly, to the extent that it discourages useful contributions from unregistered/new editors. You just have to weigh those things. Also, sure, reversion is a reasonable solution if someone makes an obviously disruptive edit, and pending changes protection may widen the pool of people who might do that; then again I don't think that really changes what I said, about people distant from the article not having the easiest job recognizing what is and isn't disruptive on a page like this. In short I feel like both of us are basically just stating plain facts about these topics that don't really conflict with each other. I think it's ultimately fair to say that all the protection levels have their uses and pros and cons, and deciding whether to apply any level of protection and then picking between the options is complex and requires weighing a lot of various factors.

As far as your sidenote, I kind of doubt that they're someone who has an account here. This is the tweet I was talking about (please don't harass them etc., just sharing for the sake of demonstration). In fairness to them, on looking closer at it I think they're actually endorsing the description that was in the infobox at the time, although of course not everyone else in the ensuing conversation agreed (e.g.). It's not bad in general for people to come here to edit the page as a result of things like this I think it's fair to say—not to give canvassing a pass but that's not really what I would call all this—but it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people starting showing up and editing the infobox to their preferred version back and forth, or that the amount of vandalism would increase, etc. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 04:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2025

the Kurdistan Region should be removed from the "supporters" section as the first linked source mentions RSF war crimes, not support for the RSF, and the second doesn't even mention the Kurdistan region at all Tizio C. Sempronio (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. I don't get it either. Happy editing. Slomo666 (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Why anti-Islamist instead of secular?

Before el-Fasher fell, their ideology in the infobox was listed as secular, but now it is listed as anti-Islamist. I think maybe it should list both, since in this Sudanese context, opposing Islamism is the same as supporting secularism, and the RSF have defined themselves as secular. Holden3172 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

update details for commander.

Please add issa abu lulu under commander or high ranking member under RSF page Sudan 2025

Sources: https://www.sudanspost.com/unmasking-rsf-brigadier-abu-lulu/ https://thesudantimes.com/sudan/who-is-issa-abu-lulu-the-butcher-of-el-fasher/ ~2025-31153-33 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't really have a list of their officers other than a small handful of their highest-ranking members, but I did use these two articles and one other to add a description of his arrest to the article. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 05:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is rumour going on that his arrest was fake but might have fact check that one too. ~2025-31153-33 (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

When I made the above edit I brought in commentary from a local investigative journalist, who reported widespread skepticism about the substance of what they were doing. I just checked specifically about whether or not it was faked and it looks like BBC Verify looked into the evidence and their findings were mixed; they said satellite evidence suggests that he was locked in a cell at the Shala Prison at 4PM on 31 October, but that the TikTok account associated with him posted an hour later. TikTok banned the account shortly after BBC Verify reported this—rather strangely, you might say, since it apparently has been up for months and has been covered in the international media before. Al Jazeera is now reporting that new videos appear to show him out of prison and back to his old activities. That story doesn't seem to have been taken up much yet in the rest of the media, so maybe we should wait a little longer and see what happens, since the story is still developing. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 02:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Good idea and great research. ~2025-31153-33 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

https://defence-blog.com/sudanese-il-76-reportedly-shot-down-during-fighting-near-babanusa/ Should add this under Sudanese civil war (2023–present)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkc1U1PUKE Yaybruchez (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
I am not sure I understand what change you are requesting. Either way, WP:YOUTUBE is not a reliable source. If I missed something, ping me. Happy editing. Slomo666 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Islamism

In regards to motives, "Anti-Islamism" is more of an alleged motive and should be shown as such. Human Rights groups and analyst's have RSF's Anti-Islamist rhetoric as political facade. (which is covered in this Wikipedia article) ~2025-31703-96 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%; I have yet to see a single reliable source that takes the idea of them genuinely being anti-Islamist seriously. There's been a lot of back-and-forth over their motives/beliefs/politics here recently, especially in terms of what the infobox should say, and I've been waiting for the conversation about it to come to some kind of conclusion before trying to edit the lead (text and infobox). The body of the article generally aligns with my understanding of the consensus around their motives among outside observers vs. the image they've consciously tried to present internationally, and the lead is supposed to follow from the body, so I'm in agreement that the lead (including the infobox) should summarize what the body says instead of presenting a constrasting picture. The conversation around it here seems to have more-or-less reached a conclusion, and it's been a couple days since anyone did anything with the "ideology" section of the infobox or made substantial changes to what the lead text says on that point, so I'll try to bring them more into harmony with the body and see how it goes. It may just revive the dispute, but hopefully if people actually focus on what the pool of sources we have really say, and remember that they should consider the body text first and then just use the lead to summarize it, any resulting disputes will at least be made on good grounds. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 01:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Although its weird that an anti-islamist group would be filled with Islamists from the former government Source George Athor (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, okay, I gave it a shot, and did characterize the "Anti-Islamism" claim that way. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 07:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Revising the lead/infobox

I've just done a rewrite of the lead and the infobox ideology section to bring them into harmony with the article body. Over time they seem to have diverged from the body significantly (not only because of the ideology section I added but just generally) and some of the text in the lead was out-of-date, so I just went through the article body as it currently stands and restructured the lead to summarize it. I don't intend this to be the "definitive version" of the lead/infobox or anything; on the contrary, I hope as the article continues to grow and change that we'll keep them in sync with it. I'm also more than happy for other editors to modify them now if they like, but I would only ask one thing: please remember that the lead/infobox are meant to be purely summaries of the article body per MOS:LEAD and not an independent source for information on the article's subject apart from the body. We also should not be reasoning on how to describe the RSF, there or in the article body, based on our gut feelings or personal intuitions about them—that's original research—nor should we be cherry picking sources to characterize them in a way that clashes with the source pool as a whole—that's non-neutral. If you want to add something to the lead/infobox that isn't based directly on something already in the article body, please add material to the body to support it first along with your sources, then add summary to the lead/infobox as needed. The article is far from comprehensively representing everything we can get from all the RS out there so there's still plenty of work to do like that.

You may note that the lead text now has no references. This is common practice (see WP:LEADCITE) because the lead is not meant to stand on its own; everything in it should be based on material in the article body that is well-supported with references. This has the benefit of making the lead easy to read. However, per MOS:LEADCITE we can add references to it as needed to support material that gets challenged, is the target of controversy, etc., or if there's material we think is liable to be treated that way that we want to support pre-emptively; I haven't done anything like that yet because I would rather take a "wait and see" approach to that, but if anyone else really wants to add some right now because they're worried about people doubting something, I probably won't object (as long as they actually support the lead passage in question). I've left some of the infobox "ideology" citations in place on this basis and we may ultimately need to add more, knowing how much that section has been the subject of dispute.

I haven't yet gone over the rest of the infobox material; there may also be things there that need to be supported in the body that aren't. Also, some of the references that were in the old version of the lead weren't cited anywhere in the body, and I'd like to go back over the old version of the lead and see if there's material we can get from those sources to expand the body text. If anyone else wants to do that I would definitely be appreciative. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 07:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mesocarp Why did you remove all mentions of the ethnic dimensions of this conflict including the fact that this militia is almost entirely made up of Baggara Arabs? Socialwave597 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Two reasons: the article body doesn't go into it at all right now, and I have yet to see a source that actually says that. I asked you about this above directly and you never responded. If you have a source that actually justifies that claim, please share it. What Zaidan says is way more complex; I'll quote it again:

The RSF’s ability to draw fighters from Chad, Niger, and Libya rests on longstanding kinship structures and patterns of nomadic migration that predate modern state boundaries. These Arab tribes – particularly the Baggara and Abbala – have sustained centuries of mobility, pastoralism, trade, and intermarriage across vast distances, weaving a dense web of social relations that has proved highly resilient to the region’s fragmented sovereignties.

This is really far from saying that the RSF's recruits are almost entirely Baggara; it doesn't even say directly what the ethnic makeup of their recruits are, just that the RSF's ability to recruit from this region relies on kinship ties that relate to the Baggara, Abbala, and other Arab groups in the area. This is honestly the most detailed discussion of the ethnic dimensions of the RSF I've seen in any RS. If you have something stronger, that actually justifies what you're saying, feel free to provide it. We could theoretically have a whole section in the article dedicated to their precise ethnic makeup if the sources are there, but just about everything I've read so far basically just glosses them as Arab, and from the impression I get, part of the reason is that the detailed picture is a lot more complex than just "they're Baggara". ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 18:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I just looked at your Searcy source, and he doesn't say that either. He says: "…a significant number of RSF fighters are from Sahelian Arab tribes of Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, and the Central African Republic. These Arabs are known as Baggara Arabs…". Between him and Zaidan, that's enough to say that "a significant number are Baggara", but from just these two sources I think you're really overstating the case. Why are you so attached to this picture? ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 18:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I had "many of their fighters come from Arab tribes and ethnic groups across the wider region". You replaced that with "many of their fighters come from Baggara Arab tribes across the wider region" and added "Baggara interests" back to the top of the ideology section in the infobox, sourced to Zaidan and Searcy who don't say that. I really think that my presentation was more reasonable given the sources we have; I'm open to saying something more specific than "Arab tribes and ethnic groups" in the lead if we discuss in the body first, but there's no justification for citing their ideology as "Baggara interests" nor claiming that their fighters are "almost entirely Baggara", at least not from either of these sources. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 18:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you also removed "ethno-mercenarism" in favor of "Baggara interests", even though Zaidan's entire paper is about the RSF being ethno-mercenarist. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 19:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

One other thing thing I want to note…on top of lacking support from RS and apparently being your own coinage, I don't think the idea of "Baggara interests" as the RSF's ideology is even fair to the Baggara. On reflection, if someone said to my face that the actions of a group like the RSF are driven by the interests of an ethnic group I belonged to, even if the group in question was 100% composed of members of my ethnicity, I would be like, "Back up—not my interests!" It implies that the ethnic group itself has a genocidal agenda; this is not a hypothetical scenario for me which is what led me down this line of thinking. I'm 100% positive that there are plenty of Baggara folks out there who do not endorse the actions of the RSF or feel that what the RSF is doing furthers their interests as Baggara—it only stands to reason. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 00:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, you can remove it. I will just wait until their is more academic research into the ethnic aspects of the RSF and the ongoing conflict. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but most Sudanese are extremely attached to their tribal identity and this war is definitely seen via the lens of ethnicity, so I feel as if it is extremely important that it should not be omitted. Searcy is specifically referring to the Baggara when she talks about the "Sahelian Arabs", Baggaras are the only ethnic Arab group that live across in Chad and across the Sahel. Socialwave597 (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ethno-mercenarism

Are there sources other than Zaidan that use this label? If not, I don't think it's due to include it in the infobox. ~2025-31930-74 (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's his coinage. The main reason I included it is because a lot of other commentators also talk about them as being motivated by economic interests at least as much as Arab supremacy, and their fighters are often paid as mercenaries from what I've read, so I included that the infobox to get at that, since that's basically what Zaidan was trying to express. You're right though that other sources haven't really taken up the specific "ethno-mercenarist" label, so if you think it's really too much I'm open to removing it. I mainly just wanted to get at the idea that their motives seem as much about business as Arab supremacy. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 18:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)r

How on Earth is UAE support "alleged" + Haftar's Libyan Army supports the RSF

The UAE takes gold from RSF-controlled areas and sends trained mercenaries to the RSF. I understand Israel not being listed but how the hell is the UAE just an ""alleged"" supporter when weapons have been found in Emarati branded shipments to RSF controlled areas?

The RSF was proven in this video to have camps in Libya. The RSF also has control over the lybian borders so they can go in or out as they please. If this isnt support then what is? Cheet3 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Since the UAE have explicitly denied it, I think Wikipedia has to include their denial just like a journalist would in a news article, no matter how dubious that denial is. I think users can look at the overwhelming body of evidence that they are a vital backer to the RSF, and decide for themselves who to believe: the UAE or the independent experts. Holden3172 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Then just put "Supporters: UAE (denied)"? that is way more accurate!? UAE support just being "alleged" is true, but when people see "alleged" in the place of "denied" it makes them think that it's some puny claim. In reality, UAE support is everything but confirmed at this point. "Alleged" does the people zero justice Cheet3 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we can use (denied) when reliable sources seem to agree, but UAE still denies it. If sources use the term alleged or allegations, or there are sources that doubt the claim, then "alleged" is better.

We are not here to do people justice. see RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ~~~~ Slomo666 (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Why is Israel's government position relevant?

From the article:

Al Monitor reported at the outset of the civil war in 2023 that the Israeli government was privately split on which side to back, citing an anonymous Israeli official, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said to favor the SAF and the Mossad said to favor the RSF.

Since it is established in the talk page that there are no reliable sources to Israel's major involvement in this conflict, why is it's government position, especially a non conclusive opinion, relevant to the article?

Skarlinski (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Al Monitor felt it was relevent enough to report on, and Israel is a regional powerhouse that has a track record of having preferences in Arab affairs. Holden3172 (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Guardian reporting much higher death toll in El Fasher

"While the final death toll of the massacre remains unclear, British MPs have been briefed that at least 60,000 have been murdered in El Fasher." With estimates as high as 150,000. The 2,000 listed in the current seems grossly understated. ~2025-38828-82 (talk)

Add Ethiopia to the list of allies

Per this source: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/ethiopia-builds-secret-camp-train-sudan-rsf-fighters-sources-say-2026-02-10/ QuisEstJoe (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is the RSF considered a "paramilitary" force, even though it's completely separate from the Government of Sudan?

Wouldn't it just be the military force of the Government of Peace and Unity, since it operates as an army for this completely separate entity? Or am I missing something here? Barcodc (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)