CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

The Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process

Open-knowledge reference entry

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMar 26, 2026
Entity authorityQ25045444 ↗
Source-derived summary

The Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process refers to a peace process undertaken by communities living in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria.

Since 2001, Jos has been the site of riots and communal violence leading to significant death and displacement estimated well into the thousands.

The Jos Forum dialogue process spanned 16 months from August 2013 - December 2014, ultimately leading to a "Declaration of Commitment to Peace" signed by the participating communities (Afizere, Anaguta, Berom, Fulani, Hausa, Igbo, South-South and Yoruba, as well as women who were represented as their own distinct community).

Background

The ‘Middle Belt’ region of Nigeria refers to the imprecise dividing line between a mostly Muslim north and the mainly Christian south. Surrounded by divergent religious, economic, and cultural histories, the middle belt has been the melting pot where small and large ethno-religious groups in Nigeria have long coexisted, but where they have also increasingly collided over land, resources, identity and political power. In particular, Jos city in Plateau State has been a centre for ethno-religious disputes and violence since the 1990s. The Nigerian state responded to these episodes of violence by either launching security force operations (military and police) or by establishing commissions of inquiry at the Federal and State levels of Government. However, independent reports have observed that these actions have not achieved permanent security and the Nigerian Government itself stated that recommendations by the commissions of inquiry were not followed up: "[The 2010 Presidential Advisory Committee on the Jos Crisis] found that the recommendations of the previous reports on past crises in the State had not been implemented".

Dialogue Process

Following the numerous previous attempts to resolve conflict in Jos, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) launched a community-driven process in 2013, which was steered by the main protagonists and the victims of conflict - the local communities (Afizere, Anaguta, Berom, Fulani, Hausa, Igbo, South-South, Yoruba. In addition, women were participating as their own distinct community).

Editorial summary

“The Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process” enters the record as open-knowledge reference entry. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Forum, Inter-communal and Dialogue can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2001, 2013, 2014, 2010—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Forum, Inter-communal and Dialogue.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“The Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Forum, Inter-communal and Dialogue provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 26, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q25045444. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2001, 2013, 2014 and 2010.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “The Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow The Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process primary sources, The Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process archive and Forum research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “The Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “The Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.