Talk:South Sudan

In Arabic

Why is the name also listed in Arabic? This is not an official language of South Sudan. I mean in some parts of Texas and Florida, Spanish is the Lingua Franca of those areas but we don't go around putting the Spanish name in those articles. By putting the name in Arabic, you're leading people to believe this is an official language of the country 99.184.222.51 (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Bea Bryant

They should change the name of the country then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.213.76 (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The flag

Is that really the flag? I could swear that official flags shown have thinner white stripes. Please check. --Trickymaster (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this article, the white bands are 1/3 the width of the black, red, and green stripes, so I uploaded a new Commons version appropriately. It has since been reverted. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The version currently in use is taken from an official government website. It's hard to beat that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That website [1] says nothing whatsoever about the construction details, such as the size of the stripes, width of the triangle, etc. I'm sure the vexillological construction sheet will be forthcoming, but in the meantime, I presumed the SPLM details were accurate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations

Where is the sourcing on Libya Eritrea and Iran refusing recognition of South Sudan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.89.44 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It will be great if the Republic of South Sudan is offered full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, then the member states concerned will be establishing High Commissions, as opposed to embassies. - (202.89.140.239 (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC))

It will have to apply for membership if it wants it. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Page history

The page history for this article is broken. It's now at the Southern Sudan article. - SimonP (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

state map

The map chosen to show state boundaries is out of date. (It is based on a map originally uploaded in 2006.) There are two Italian verisons (1,2) that are more current. --Lasunncty (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ReplacedSir Brightypup II 23:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember to replace all other maps of Africa in other articles

None of them show the new Sudan/South Sudan border. 96.233.134.228 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Protect against vandals

Due to its recent change to a country this may cause a few people to want to make harmful edits to the page (as evidenced in the last few edits) so one suggestion would be to temporary lock it to registered users only.

Not sure who you are (too lazy to check the history), but HJ Mitchell has semi-protected the page for a week in light of persistent vandalism. Remember in the future to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) to get something like what follows this sentence on your posts. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Corrected vandels to vandals and due to Due. 173.210.125.42 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan -> Republic of South Sudan

It appears the official name of the new country is the Republic of South Sudan, as recently edited by LouisianaFan with a source for the information. Considering this to be true, should this page not be under Republic of South Sudan and South Sudan should redirect to it? CycloneGU (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia generally uses the short-form name unless it's absolutely necessary to avoid confusion (for instance, People's Republic of China and Republic of China). United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland redirects to United Kingdom; Federative Republic of Brazil redirects to Brazil; Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan redirects to Jordan; Republic of Sudan redirects to Sudan; and so on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know Brazil was more than...well, Brazil. *LOL* Just thought I'd ask, makes sense to me to link the shorter name to the official one, but that's just me. If convention says otherwise, I won't fight it. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why South Sudan used the word Sudan? Do they love Sudan? I thing they had war for decades! If the name the new country South Sudan (using the war Sudan), they give the right to Sudan for new attacks. If they don't like war the people of South Sudan, they must find a new name for the country, for example Pakistan was a part of India, Pakistani people feel totally seperated from India. In South Korea and Northern Korea, some people still want one nation. In the case of Sudan, the killings will never stop, so to use the word Sudan in South Sudan just gives one more reason for war, and war is the father of death and chaos. I would call South Sudan "Jubando" from the capital Juba. I would NEVER give the right for Sudan to invade to liberate the southern part of their same nation. I guess people of South Sudan love war, so they don't want to use a UNIQUE name like "Jubando", they use the name of an enemy country to give them a reason for war, a reason for Sudan to claim their Southern part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.10.150 (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of the Coat of Arms

The Coat of Arms seem to have been misspelled. Can anyone get it renamed to what it needs to be? RowanQuigley (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Project

Should there be a seperate Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudan, to take care of all articles related to South Sudan or should we just stick on to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sudan? Mar4d (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Id approve of a South Sudan wikiproject, the article and it's sections need to be built up and maintained by someone and I do not see how a South Sudan project would hurt (if it proves uneless down the line it can always be merged into Sudan's project). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

They are now two different countries. We now require two unique Wikiprojects for the countries. I'm not the person to manage it; I am sure I could create the Wikiproject page as a neutral party, however. CycloneGU (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I'll let people more involved with the articles do the work on building the WikiProject page. Also, feel free to consult me and I'll help with what I can. CycloneGU (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have also added a request for a parameter of the WikiProject to be added into Template:WikiProject Africa; hopefully, we can kick off the new project. Mar4d (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Got a WikiProject template up there now (top of this page). My first attempt at a template; anyone who knows more about these templates may want to follow up on my work and fix anything screwed up, or add anything I don't know about. CycloneGU (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone please start assessing South Sudan articles properly and under the correct South Sudan template (not Southern Sudan or, simply, Sudan) so we can have some good idea of how the project pages look at the next bot update. I've requested another manual run in a couple of days to get some updated figures since we're just getting started here. CycloneGU (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories

These need to be changed, and new categories created. I'll potter about and see what I can do based on the categories here, but I do not know all of them so will need backup. For example, "C-Class Sudan articles" is no longer correct for this article. CycloneGU (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I need administrative help on this one. Can an admin. help me figure out why I can't remove incorrect categories from the talk page OR the category page itself? I want to create a South Sudan category where a Sudan category already exists of some nature. CycloneGU (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Put in a move request on the relevant page. A lot of this is going to have to be handled by administrators, unfortunately. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. =) Also, the categories that appeared on this page when I started this section have since vanished (check the history, you still see them on that revision), so either someone saw my post and started working it out or this was already happening behind the scenes. CycloneGU (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of South Sudan is both an English-speaking country and a former British colony as well. Those 2 categories also need to be added as well. - (202.89.140.239 (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC))

"Articles containing potentially dated statements from July 9 2011" - why is this on the article as a category? It can't be removed, either. CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Maps?

Now that South Sudan is independent now we have to change every map of the world in wikipedia to add South Sudan? Spongie555 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the idea. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 04:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

How about a political map of the new nation, showing cities? All that's there is the regions map. Czolgolz (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The squares that should have colors representing geographical areas are both gray in the two maps. I'm using Internet Explorer 7 in XP Home, SP3, but I have many Security settings disabled like Javascript, Java & Active X. Other WP maps display well. 173.210.125.42 (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion (July 9, 2011)

At the moment, the Religion section seems to contradict itself, stating:

• Unlike the predominantly Muslim population of Sudan, the South Sudanese follow traditional religions, while a minority are Christians[30] .
• South Sudan's population is predominantly Christian.[36]

So, which is it? —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Both sources are from BBC and they both conflict. It's hard to say, I'm not extremely familiar with religion in South Sudan. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 05:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's tricky, then. I say see what other sources say and go with the one that seems to get the most agreement. My best call. CycloneGU (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"The conflict began in late 1955, a few months before Sudan gained independence from colonial Britain, and was passed down through generations. It was in part about race and religion, about the people of the south asserting that they were different from but equal to northerners. This came in the face of racist Islamist campaigns to impose Arab culture, Islam and sharia law across Sudan. Most southerners are Christian or have traditional beliefs that imbue the natural world with spiritual power. “We worship the ostrich, but we consider it like Jesus, like a ­mediator,” one man explained. “It is not a God itself.” 1 Mar4d (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The religion section in Culture of Sudan also states "Towards the south of Sudan, one will find a more pagan and Christian influence expressed in the lives of the local populace." Sort of both, I guess though hard to tell which is the majority; Mar4d (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

One discusses a "Christian influence" while the other blatantly says they're mostly Christian. I'd go with Christian. CycloneGU (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with CycloneGU; news television broadcasts today seem to agree with this also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.157.51 (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a South Sudanese family living in an apartment in our house and they have celebrated all day. They clame that more or less all of South Sudan is Christian while Sudan is Muslim, and that this is one of the bases to the conflict between the north and south Sudan. I have no other sources than this verbal conversation. 212.251.180.166 (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Anders

How bout this; since nothing can be officially deemed as of yet, how bout we say that the primary religions found are Christian and traditional, with no mention of majority/minority proportions, as they're either: A) unknown to us, B) unclear as to where the "boundary" between the two is, as demonstrated by what User:Mar4d said. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd concur with that. Until we have some source indicating estimated percentages , or anything except vague text, we should stick to stating the level of information we know: Both Christian and traditional religious traditions are prominent. We may not know the balance thereof, but that doesn't mean we can't say they are both prominent. To say more, however, doesn't seem warranted at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Links

Should the sub-articles continue be redlinked or should the redlink be removed (specifically the "Main Artile" link) for the Geography, Economy, and Religion subsections? Perhaps WP is waiting for someone to create an article with this title? Does anyone have something in the work already? Your opinion? Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I vote to keep them. All countries have articles for these topics, and the community will fill them in. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think it would be in the interest of WikiProject South Sudan to keep them. People will fill them in as time goes on and they are relatively standard forks. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 07:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. They will be created over time, as part of a series of country-wise articles. Mar4d (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why these stubs should exist at all. I say keep everything here until there's something substantial to split off. I just don't buy the argument that other countries have sub-articles so so should this. Let them be redirects to the section in question (that'll make them nice and blue) until it's time to split. One good whole main article is better than a main article full of holes and an array of stubs. Are we loosing sight of the purpose of WP? Readers (remember the readers) shouldn't be shunted all over the place just to get a tit-bit of info (like a picture of school kids and a list of two unis). JIMp _talk·cont 06:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Time of independence

The time of independence is listed as "12:01 am". This seems to be an instance of the "American Minute" which is frequently introduced in the USA to deal with the ambiguity introduced by the 12-hour am/pm system. However, I have personally rarely seen it used outside the USA, and for example at BBC gives the time of independence as midnight (00:00) local time [2]. Hpa (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - should be changed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an irrelevant detail and should not be mentioned at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The first article I read about it said 12:01 a.m. That's why I added it. It appeared to be standard on other articles I read later. Besides, we could use UTC, but then we'd be claiming they declared independence on July 8. That ain't right. CycloneGU (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a bigger question about this. You say independence happened at midnight effectively....Well, what was the meaning then later in the day of the Declaration of Independence and the lowering of the Sudan flag and raising of the S. Sudan flag? Surely it is only when they declared independence that the clock ticks? Or is there a legal provision that stipulated that independence would occur without any proclamation at midnight? I don't konw the answer and if you have answers based on sources, I would welcome them. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Bid to join international organizations

Might be worthwhile to change the last sentence in the third paragraph in the introduction to: "South Sudan is expected to join the United Nations, African Union and the Commonwealth of Nations". The following link could be used as the source of information: http://talkofsudan.com/sudan/item/9001-south-sudan-launches-bid-to-join-commonwealth. --89.216.218.134 (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That rewrite excludes the Arab League. CycloneGU (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Internet Code

Anyone know what is the most likely new Internet code for South Sudan? They want .ss, but it's Europe-centric so they probably won't get it because of the connotations. So what? .sd = Sudan, .sn = Senegal, .su = Soviet Union / Russia, .sa = Saudi Arabia... nothing logical left? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.251.170 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"We want our domain name to be '.ss' for 'South Sudan', but people are telling us 'SS' has an association in Europe with Nazis," an official, Stephen Lugga, told Reuters. BBC

In other words, they've applied for .ss but it's not confirmed yet, so at this time I wouldn't put it in the article. Though pardon my ignorance for not knowing the Nazi connection. CycloneGU (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was easily found out. But even so, why should something that happened more than 65 years ago affect today? In 30 years, pretty much everyone who had any connction to the event will be dead. Why should .ss be forbidden because of an event that happened so long ago? I hope they get their .ss myself. NEway, this is not a forum, so I'll shaddup. =) CycloneGU (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Serbia had a similar issues, as .se (Sweden), .sr (Suriname), .sb (Sololan Islands), .si (Slovenia), .sj (Svalbard and Jan Mayen), and .sa were all taken. They ended up settling on .rs, for Republic of Serbia, so .rs for "Republic of South Sudan" is out of the question. .ss seems to be the best choice, unless they go with something like .js for "Janob Sudan" or something, which I doubt since Arabic is not an official language. — MK (^t/_c) 05:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A minor note on consistency

I would like to point out that, as we heard ad nauseam in the case of Kosovo, South Sudan is "only" recognized by 24 countries and thus is not a "real" state. It is extremely premature to present it as an independent state. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's a country, not a state. Isn't stating it's a state in the article contradictory for that reason? CycloneGU (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Plus it is only recognised by insignificant countries, not even proper countries. I'm with Eritrea on this one. IJA (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many countries recognize, IJA. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The U.S.A. is an insignificant country? CycloneGU (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to the anti-Kosovo people over on the relevant pages, yes. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes the USA, China, Brazil and Russia are all insignificant unimportant countries. Their recognitions don't really count. Their recognitions aren't meaningful and are of little importance. IJA (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As we learned at the time, only the opinion of a small, vocal minority of editors counts for anything. They said Kosovo wasn't a "real" country because it didn't meet their recognition expectations, which they never defined. Thus, I see no reason why South Sudan should get a pass and be promoted immediately to full country on Wikipedia with such paltry recognition numbers. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the only reason the US and China recognised because they were bribed by Armenia and Uganda. Maybe this is worth noting? IJA (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You think, or you have documented proof? Without a valid reference, it cannot go in the article, period. CycloneGU (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think claiming that America, China, Brazil, and Russia are insignificant is the most laughable thing I've heard in a while. What makes Kosovo more significant than these four? CycloneGU (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just think about it, they're not even that big. They have no weight in the international arena. Their recognitions should be classed as null and void. They're barely real countries. IJA (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No offense meant, but I have no clue what the above comment is in reply to. You are confusing me greatly. CycloneGU (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, if size of the country is your argument, may it be noted that Canada is now, by your own argument, the most significant country to recognize South Sudan at this time. CycloneGU (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Canada is not even big, Russia is bigger. The Vatican is bigger than Canada. IJA (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the fact that Sudan has recognized South Sudan is totally insignificant. -- megA (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, not even notable tbf IJA (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it funny we seem to keep changing what makes a recognition significant. If Russia has indeed recognized South Sudan, then by the size argument they and Canada are now 1-2. The U.S. is the fourth biggest country in the world and the one single country that, if anything major like a financial meltdown were to occur, would destroy the financial doings of the entire world; thus, by the importance criteria, they are the most significant country in the world, period. So claiming these are insignificant would be a laughable matter. However, I personally consider the MOST significant recognition to be Sudan itself; if they still refused to recognize the new country, it would be a sign of continued unrest not of a civil nature, but now of an international nature. CycloneGU (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Tbf I agree with megA, it is totally insignificant that Sudan recognised. Makes no difference whatsoever. South Sudan je Sudan! IJA (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with myself, given the size of the universe and our own galaxy, our whole planet is totally insignificant. Except me. -- megA (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is very true. You must be some sort of genius. IJA (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a blessing and a burden... -- megA (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

CycloneGU is seen rolling his eyes and offering no comment. CycloneGU (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan is considered a lock to join the UN by early next week, as well as the AU and possibly the Arab League, the Non-Aligned Movement, and/or the Commonwealth of Nations. With Kosovo, a bunch of countries insisted they wouldn't recognize, and three and a half years later, international recognition of Kosovo is just about split down the middle. South Sudanese secession was noncontroversial, had the (begrudging) support of the Sudanese government, and is far more comparable to the separation of Montenegro from Serbia (then "Serbia and Montenegro") than to the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Official languages: Both English and Arabic

...according to BBC: [3] -- megA (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Any arguments? CycloneGU (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC is not official source. In new constitution of South Sudan only English is listed as official language, and constitution is better source. Aotearoa (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. We have to use that as the official source as it's their own page. CycloneGU (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a strong argument. BBC sometimes is a bit wonky with facts (and grammar), lately... The "Draft Transitional Constitution" calls English "the official working language and language of instruction", and all indigenous languages "national languages". -- megA (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not draft anymore, according to this document] new constitution was signed by president today at 12:05. Aotearoa (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, according to government [4] it was at 1.47 pm

I don't see anything there clarifying what the official languages are. CycloneGU (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And you shouldn't; it's an agenda for a ceremony. Why don't you look in the constitution, which Aotearoa has shared the link to. Hurmata (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for someone who indulges in "quote mongering". If you accept the possibility that different BBC pages might be inconsistent on a point of fact (not a peculiarity of the BBC), then research, you might find divergence. Just today, Peter Martell's report linked to the Interim Constitution — which contradicts the statement you found in a mere article sidebar. Moreover, your wishful thinking can be expected to be mistaken because any Arabic speaking population in South Sudan is not substantial enough to warrant having Arabic as a working language. In light of the fact that both the 2005 interim constitution and the 2011 interim constitution excluded all of the indigenous languages as working languages, it makes no sense to suppose that Arabic would be. Hurmata (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice you called this a reply to me. I had already accepted further down that the government source did not state Arabic as a language, so this thread is, for all intents and purposes, resolved and is merely discussion now for any further questions relating to it. In any case, I was seeking other opinion before putting it in the article myself because I wasn't certain, as I myself am all the way over in Canada and have never BEEN to South Sudan, let alone know much about the Arabic population. There was no "wishful thinking" involved and I take slight offense to the thought that I was hoping for a reason to put Arabic in there; I go by facts, not by wistful wishes. CycloneGU (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and civil war

In recent years Christian churches have grown a hostility which is frequently characterized as racism, rather than religious persecution, between the predominantly Arab North and the black African South.

This claim doesn't seem to be backed up by the sources given. The Christian science monitor (one source) is more nuanced: Originally, the Nilotic peoples were indifferent to Christianity, but in the latter half of the twentieth century many people in the educated elite embraced its tenets, at least superficially. English and Christianity have become symbols of resistance to the Muslim government in the north, which has vowed to destroy both. Unlike the early civil strife of the 1960s and 1970s, the insurgency in the 1980s and the 1990s has taken on a more religiously confrontational character [5] The statement above should be rephrased. Gugganij (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In recent years Christian churches have grown a hostility which is frequently characterized as racism, rather than religious persecution, between the predominantly Arab North and the black African South.

Agreed, the source doesn't say anything at all that would support this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.129.151 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oil.

"Most oilfields in South Sudan are owned by companies affiliated with the PRC..."

PRC should be changed to China. 173.210.125.42 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. WP:NEUTRAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope that's an attempt at irony. Using PRC for China is obfuscatory and pedantic. 173.210.125.42 (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, and I'll leave it at that because this is the wrong topic for the discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Offensive word in history section

i suggest replacing the statement "Geographical barriers protected the southerners from Islam's advance, enabling them to retain their social and cultural heritage and their political and religious institutions." to "Geographical barriers prevented spread of Islam to the southerners thus saving southerner culture's from foreign influence". because the word "protect" give the feel that islam is dangerous as if it were an epidemic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by باسم المصرى (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Correct you are; changed it. Sir Brightypup II 21:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Change it back. The history of jihad should not be sanitized.173.210.125.42 (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanitizing jihad? what? Let's leave the POV at home. "protect" is an inherently value-based word in this context. I think a better version is simply to replace the "protect" in the first version, without editing the back end, so ""Geographical barriers prevented the spread of Islamic influence to the southerners, enabling them to retain their social and cultural heritage and their political and religious institutions."

name

In the media many are using southern Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The country's name is the Republic of South Sudan and a Google News search for the term "South Sudan" gets about three times as many hits as "Southern Sudan". -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the Article about the name. If you look at the Constitution, it says the name is "The Republic of South Sudan" (the word "The" is included in the official name). Check it out. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"South Sudan is a sovereign and independent Republic, and it shall be known as “The Republic of South Sudan.” (Art. 1(1)). 84.203.40.1 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It used to be Southern Sudan, before independence. In the English language, as far as geographic names go, a compass direction without an ending (North, South, East, West) is for the name of a land, but an ending is used for an area within a land. (western Virginia is not West Virginia, for example). — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that there is much truth in that:

• Southern Rhodesia;
• Northern Rhodesia (these two, albeit at no time sovereign states but they were more like "lands" in their own right than lands "within" other lands - that's my opinion any way);
• Southern Ireland, well perhaps this example does not show much but I have little doubt the British would have been very happy for the Irish to have stuck with the name Southern Ireland for their state after 1922 but the Irish were never too keen on the term.
• Western Australia and the Northern Territories - You draw note to the US states but in Australia we find these names for states (very much equivalent to the US states) alongside South Australia and New South Wales. If ther was a political significance to having an "ern" at the end of the name, why the discrepancy?
• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (not quite a US State but still the name runs couter to your argument).
• Western Sahara too - Well, what its status is I wont dare to get into but its notable that its the name.
• Western Samoa (an internationally recognised sovereign state - now named Samoa);
• Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (a partially recognsed sovereign state) is another example of where this logic does not hold true.

All in, I don't think there is much truth in your original assertion. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland" shows that they're not independent of the rest of Ireland, at least not fully. It's still a part of Ireland, in some way or another, thus, Northern. If they dont answer to each other (North Dakota, South Dakota) then, no ern. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, you've ignored all my other examples of where you were wrong and picked the corollory of "Southern Ireland" where I had pointed out didn't show a whole lot. You're even ignoring states like Western Samoa and Northern Cyprus. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

name of northern Sudan

its "Republic of the Sudan; the article needs fixing. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you're absolutely right. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I am an IP editor so I can't fix things myself. Perhaps you could also fix the name of South Sudan - As per. Art. 1 of its constitution, its name is "THE republic of south sudan" - the word "THE" was taken out again; its upper case T. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

Does any one know where the full text of the Declaration of Independence read out by the Speaker can be accessed on the Internet? 84.203.40.1 (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

IP Editors

I am an IP editor (I dont have an account and I dont want to create one). I would like to help out on the SS article but can't. Oddly, there is no such restriction on the Sudan article. Can the SS article be opened up please? It needs "all hands on deck" if you ask me; no need to shut out IP users. Thats my opinion. Hope to find some support here. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to create an account, I'm sorry, but the page has been semi-protected because the majority of vandalism on Wikipedia is perpetrated by IP editors. Hopefully you'll decide to join us as you are right that we could use all hands on deck. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange how its not a problem on the Sudan article page....Disappointing. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry IP. It was locked after some random vandalism by other IP addresses. Hopefully it'll come off soon enough. Subpages that exist should be editable though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted. During times where vandalism is high, affected pages are protected and IP editors are encouraged to participate via this talk page so they are not left out. It's not perfect, but the only way around it is by creating an account. Otherwise, you may contribute to the talk page and your suggestions will be considered for the article; when the article does open up again (it was a one-week duration, to the 15th my time I think), then you'll be able to freely edit it again (unless more IP vandals show up). CycloneGU (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge stub subtopics

Education in South Sudan contains a lead sentence about the article itself (i.e. a useless and meaningless intro), a picture and a list of two universities. Why does this article need to exist? Isn't it better to let the section here expand until there's enough to split it off & make a new article?

To a lesser extent Culture of South Sudan and, lesser still, Demographics of South Sudan have the same kind of problems.

Merge the first, probably the second and maybe the third here at least until there's something worth splitting off.

... In fact the same can be said for the bulk of the articles listed in the navbox below.

JIMp _talk·cont 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this in the "Red Links" thread above. We decided it was best to create these stubs and fill them in. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and have mentioned so in the above section. I don't believe we should be making readers run all over the place for this little piece and that little piece of info. I'm suggesting those pages be kept but as redirects to the relevant section here. Let them be split off if they expand to a decent size. This, of course, is a much broader issue than this one article. I've started a general discussion at WT:MOS#A whole article vs an article full of holes. JIMp _talk·cont 07:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Entirely agree with Jimp's merger proposals. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan has applied to join the Commonwealth of Nations

I read the source for the above statement; it is simply not true according to the source. It looks likely that SS will apply but there is nothing to suggest in the article that it has already done so. This is simply inaccurate. When it lodges its application with the Commonwealth Secretariat, only then would such a statement be apt. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Military of South Sudan

Military of South Sudan article needed. --93.137.150.76 (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Region"

Use of the above term should be reviewed - e.g. "the "region" has been negatively affected by two civil wars since Sudanese independence"; more apt. now is "coutnry". 84.203.40.1 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Media

Press intimmidation has been reprted.[[6]]213.81.125.188 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

History

I cut this from the history section:

"There is little documentation of the history of the South Sudan until the beginning of Egyptian :rule in Sudan in the early 1820s and the subsequent extension of this rule into the south. :Information before that time is based largely on oral history."

It's unreferenced and not very accurate. Archeology, genetics, linguistics, and a number of other tools beyond oral history have shed light on the earlier history. It also gives a dated impression of Africa as a mysterious land lost to history. There are just as many written records as pre-colonial America. - SimonP (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

SimonP - I certainly sympathise with the view you have expressed but hope when you say that (1) "Archeology, genetics, linguistics, and a number of other tools beyond oral history have shed light on the earlier history" - you will input into the article what they have actually shed light on and not merely leave it for us (who clearly don't have your knowledge) to do so; (2) "There are just as many written records as pre-colonial America." - you will input the apt. references to such written records. To do otherwise would be lazy and frankly it would be better to leave the quote sentence in question in if you are not going to do so. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)