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)

Southern Sudan can apply for Commonwealth because It was a British protection, not a colony, like Egypt. ----

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The map chosen to show state boundaries is out of date.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)

Academic sources tend to support the assertion that Christians are in a minority as does the US state dept. entry and the library of congress figure for early 90s is also consistent. Supporting references were recently lost from the Religion section but have now been restored and I've cited the state department ref. in the demographics section. Tpaine99 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there's mixing of traditional and Christian elements, with no clear distinction between the two. Now the extent of this, how wide-spread it is, is the part we clearly dont know. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 07:17, 14 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)

Of course they're going to have a ceremony, but as I understand it, South Sudan officially became a country at the top of 9 July as per the terms of the CPA. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I missed this. Yes, midnight on the day of independence is the official time for independence regardless of whether the ceremony is held immediately at midnight, 9 a.m., noon, or 7 in the evening. CycloneGU (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

CycloneGU and Kudzu1: I, (formerly as an IP editor) was the one who raised this question. I also prvoded a detailed source and inserted the following text into the article:

South Sudan became an independent state on 9 July 2011 at approximately 1.30 pm (Juba time) when the Declaration of Independence of South Sudan was read by the Rt. Hon. James Wani Igga, Speaker of the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly. It was read at an open parliamentary session (sitting number 27-2011) of the Assembly in front of a large assembled audience at the Dr. John Garang Mausoleum in Juba, South Sudan.

• If you are disputing that what I have said above is correct, please (1) provide a reference to what section of the CPA says that independence would take place at midnight (even before it has been declared); (2) explain why the Rt. Hon. James Wani Igga made the declaration at a stting of the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly (I stress "Southern" Sudan Legislative Assembly); If the Republic already existed before he arrived at the Indepdenece Day ceremony and declared indepdendence, why was there a sitting of the "Southern" Sudan Legislative Assembly. After all, by your logic, that body ceased to exist at middnight; (3) Why did the President sign the Constitution that afternoon shortly after the Rt. Hon. James Wani's indepdence declaration? By your logic, the Republic was already in existence? Please be specific in your responses. NelsonSudan (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC) (formerly an IP Editor).

  While I am not debating against what you provide, I do note that a large number of sources before this have noted the time of independence as midnight exactly. I would be interested in others opinions on this matter. The thing of most interest, however, is the extreme lack of articles from the last couple days referring to midnight (I only found this as the closest); none of them refer to 1:30 p.m. either. However, if you open articles written and last edited on July 9, they will most likely refer to it as midnight. Do we go with number of sources or with a single source? CycloneGU (talk) 14:17, 17 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)

I noticed that Arabic has been re-added as an official language, with a comment in the history saying "CIA World Factbook lists Arabic as an official language", but the constitution of South Sudan lists only English as an official language, so who is correct, the CIA Factbook or the constitution of the country itself? --180.181.115.119 (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, but this video by The African Bulletin lists Arabic as an official language in its description. CycloneGU (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This article -- after reading it -- says both north and south as one nation before the independence of South Sudan had both Arabic and English as official languages. It doesn't say anything about an official language for the newly independent nation of South Sudan in the article, just for the united Sudan prior to the independence of South Sudan. I would have thought a country's constitution would supersede a third party source, such as the CIA Factbook or a news article, at anytime. --180.181.115.119 (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 180.181.115.119 (although it's kind of antisocial of you to insist on your unreasonable to type name). You, CycloneGU, quote mongering again, despite your above protest with its pose of wounded innocence. Again, the Arabic speakers are in Sudan, so very unlikely there would be motivation to make it an official language. Anyway, as I recall, neither the 2005 nor the 2011 draft constitutions use the term, official language.Hurmata (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit sick of some editors presuming other editors have ulterior motives and jumping all over them. I see this a lot on the other pages where I'm most active (those related to the Arab Spring) and it doesn't contribute anything. I agree the primary sources for this don't call Arabic an official language and it shouldn't be given here as such, but can we please chill with the personal attacks and accusations? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I for one want to know how I'm quote mongering. I searched Google for "official languages of south sudan" (case doesn't matter) and got the video as a top result, and the description says both. I don't know if it's accurate, it's just the result I found, and I was occupied with something at the time and just doing quick research. Give me one piece of evidence that I am mongering quotes - and perhaps explain what that means, I haven't seen that term used as yet.

As for the article itself (which we should be discussing here, not uncivilly attacking other editors), if the Constitution of South Sudan only lists English, we can only put English in the article. Period. Unless an updated source is given, Arabic is not for our purpose considered an official language of South Sudan. I just found the video description of interest and mentioned it. CycloneGU (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that only English should be listed. The Constitution of The Republic of South Sudan is the definitive source here. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 21:35, 13 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)

You're under arrest. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 03:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Care to explain why you disagree rather than try to be WikiPolice? CycloneGU (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Do I get to plead innocent? 84.203.64.52 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC) !

"Northern Ireland" shows that they're not independent of the rest of Ireland"...pardon ? Ireland is an island, the island of Ireland. Northern Ireland, part of the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), happens to be on the same island together with the Republic of Ireland (usually just called Ireland, just to confuse people). Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 16 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)

Debunking the claim to use the definite article

The claim that the official name includes the definite article has already been introduced above. However, there has been enough discussion and enough editing to warrant the creation of this subsection.

The notion that the official name is The Republic of South Sudan instead of Republic of South Sudan is a counter-common sense notion being promoted by some nerdy editors some of who have demonstrated their ignorance (one said, "Brazil is more than just 'Brazil'? . . . LOL"). I wonder how many of these editors are adults. The claim relies on what I have elsewhere called "quote mongering".

Interested editors are referred to the U.S. Department of State's list of short form and long form country names. Hurmata (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy with your persistent usage of both the Talk page and your edit summaries to take shots at fellow editors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Kuzdu1 here. Maybe I am a little nerdy or geeky, but one thing is for sure: I'm definitely an adult and don't appreciate the childish attacks on myself and other editors. That is not how to present your case and often leads to it being ignored by all involved parties.

I'm prepared to file a Wikiquette case if any more bad faith accusations of this nature are made here (that is, unless one is already filed). With that said, I think an apology is in order for the offending remarks both here, and directly attacking me above. I'm going to take a second (even though it's 2:41 a.m. here) and see where the constitution reference is in the article, maybe add it earlier as well next to the country's name if that will satisfy your exacting standards for article perfection. CycloneGU (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

On research, the reference is already there, number 3. Open that, scroll to page 12, and read the very first article that says (1) South Sudan is a sovereign and independent Republic, and it shall be known as "The Republic of South Sudan". We'll wait for your explanation here as to why what appears on the page should be any different. CycloneGU (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it would be improper English, so we should wait and see whether they insist on it. Aside from that, note the following points. (1) The lone occurrence of "The Republic . . ." could be an oversight. (I searched the document of "the republic of south sudan".) (2) Consider three of many examples from the text of the "Transitional Constitution" linked to be the Sudan Tribune:
(a) "English shall be the official working language in the Republic of South Sudan," — that's "in the Republic" (Article 6, Language, page 3);
(b) "The territory of the Republic of South Sudan comprises . . ." — that's "of the Republic" (Article 1, clause (2), The Republic of South Sudan and its Territory, page 1, by the way 'i' in "its" should have been capitalized);
(c) Article 42's heading: "Defence of the Republic ..." .

To deal with CycloneGU's objection. Please remember that we're not just running a discussion club here, we're producing a book, an encyclopedia, which has sometimes arrogant pretensions to "include all knowledge", to top Google searches, and to constantly improve its factual and academic quality. The thing is that "academic naivete" (uneducatedness) like yours is disruptive in a document composition project like Wikipedia. Above, you actually supposed that the article title academically must obligatorily be "Republic of South Sudan". Somebody had to explain things. Let me enhance what they said. Most nations are really "Kingdom of ..." or "Republic of ..." or something else. NO, the article on "Norway" DOESN'T need to be entitled "Kingdom of Norway", and NO, the article on "Mexico" DOESN'T need to be entitled the "United States of Mexico". Oh, and let's not forget that the name of the United States of America isn't considered to include "the". The use of "the" is a grammatical requirement. As I say, it is tedious and disruptive to have to explain such elementary points. I will freely state that it's not uncivil to point out ignorance of such depth that obstructs what we do at Wikipedia. Hurmata (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There's another justification for scolding some of the other editors, the ones who contributed to a running tally, with map, of international recognitions of South Sudan. This sort of information is outrageously trivial, and it's unencyclopedic. An ongoingly revised map of countries which have recognized South Sudan is such a foolish idea that it degrades the quality of Wikipedia. I already explained this, but I'll consolidate the discussion here. (1) One country extending diplomatic recognition to another is expected. REFUSING diplomatic recognition is rare, totally notable, and would surely be addressed in a Wikipedia article. In the case of South Sudan, if Sudan itself isn't going to refuse to recognize it, no other country will. Tracking this kind of cumulating news in Wikipedia would be like chronicling the stream of reported vote returns on election night. Foolish, useless information which would be a misuse of Wikipedia. (2) The only motivations for this behavior are (1) wanting the thrill of contributing to Wikipedia despite knowing you're not sharp enough to do the research to find genuine information; (2) wanting the thrill of celebrating a developing story by posting a stream of "latest information", which is a misuse of Wikipedia. Hey, writing about South Sudan for Wikipedia is not supposed to be like holding a game watching house party! If that's your interest, then find a political bulletin or breaking news bulletin board, leave comments at a newspaper Website. And in fact, as I also previously noted, such a map probably hasn't been created for other countries. Hurmata (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It 'is uncivil to call other myself and other editors "unsophisticated", "apparent Trekkies or Dungeons and Dragons devotees" or to accuse them of "just going through the motions of editing". I would suggest you be more courteous in how you respond to further comments on this and all pages. Calling other editors name is not the way to advance discussion. If we are at the stage of pointing out grammatical errors to one another, and calling each other ignorant, I'd suggest you look no further than your comment at the bottom of this page: "The official Web site of the government does hasn't posted the current constitution yet." IgnorantArmies^?! 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) When you responded before, you didn't refute my points, you just wrote as if you hadn't noticed anything I said. That is a sort of ignorance. Look, we get lots of ignorant people contributing, it has to be OK to call them on it. As for my editing error, that's acceptable because it's not in an article, it's in the "back room". AND it's acceptable because if it's pointed out to me, I'm not going to deny it's not an error. AND it's acceptable because it is not due to ignorance, it's a text editing oversight. It's NOT an instance of cherry picking of evidence. Hurmata (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I read a personal attack of any sort in a post, whether it's to me or to someone else, to me the poster instantly loses all credibility with whatever is being said. So I can't blame IgnorantArmies for, shall we say, being ignorant to the rest of your post. As you have personally attacked me and are making it clear that you are trying to justify this (see "There's another justification for scolding some of the other editors, the ones who contributed to a running tally"), nothing you say has any credibility to me at this point. I suggest you carefully reread and address that before having an argument on this talk page over the word, "The". Finally, since you are completely ignoring the first article in the constitution and looking through the rest of the document for an excuse to have the document modified to your liking, I won't even address the content of your post for that reason as well. CycloneGU (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If the editor does not wish to download a PDF, the corresponding section can be found here at WikiSource. It's in the first line of the first article of the constitution: hard to miss. IgnorantArmies^?! 08:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree (again - I was the Editor, I believe who first pointed it out) that the term "The" is needed in the official name. The Constitution of The Republic of South Sudan is the definitive source here. The specific provision dealing very expressly and specifically with the name of the state includes "The"; that's it. Period. Some one mentioned that it could have been an oversight or mistake....Absolutely, that is possible (I think it was ill advised certainly) but unless they change the Constitution "The" remains a part of its official name. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Would any of you editors know how to put in one of those "imbedded messages" in the article....I have seen it before on other aritlces...Basically, it is text that when some one goes to edit the article it points out "Before you edit, XYZ" (but does not show up on the article); In our case, it would read something like "Before you edit this sentence, please note that the term "The" is part of SS's official name". 84.203.40.1 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I edited yesterday...

|conventional_long_name = The Republic of South Sudan <!-- Do not remove "The", it's part of the official name -->

And yet, people still tried to edit it. CycloneGU (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that elsewhere in the constitution, the definite article is not capitalized. This may come down to a style preference. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I just say, that whilst I'm not arguing with the constitution, the reference of The World Factbook does not use the definite article in the conventional long form of the name. See [6] under Government.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:13, 17 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)

Just as a note, IP editors may once again edit the page. So far no vandalism has occurred, so for the time being IPs may directly change what is needed in the article. Happy editing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:34, 16 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)

Demonstrate that there really is that much to say about it. Hurmata (talk) 10:14, 13 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.[[7]]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)

Agreed, I've stared working on a better history at History of South Sudan. Once that is done we can add a summary here. - SimonP (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks. I will take a look at the article at some point. Best wishes with your work. Remember, a good start is half the work. And please, please, please reference. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Source is lacking for the text of the constitution

In the last few days, we have invoked a text of the transitional constitution of 2011 available on the Web. The draft transitional constitution was published in April 2011. However, scrutiny reveals that this document is "undocumented". No month or day is given. No report is made whether the April 2011 draft was amended or not, and no wording is supplied which affirms that the Web text is indeed the constitution that was ratified by the Legislative Assembly of South Sudan on 7 July 2011, two days prior to independence.

The editor IgnorantArmies placed this Web text in Wikisource. This was premature, and it simply relied on information from this talk page or this article.

The official Web site of the government does hasn't posted the current constitution yet. Hurmata (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The constitution was passed by the South Sudan Legislative Assembly on 7 July, two days before independence. The copy of the constitution that is cited as a reference is from the Sudan Tribune's website. The copy contains the seal of the GOSS, suggesting it is correct. It would seem unlikely that a major news source would publish a false constitution. IgnorantArmies^?! 10:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote "official Web site of the government". The correct identification is "official Web site of the government's United States mission", http://www.gossmission.org.
Reply to IgnorantArmies: we have all these unsophisticated people editing this article. Apparent Trekkies or Dungeons and Dragons devotees. You really are just going through the motions of editing. My argument has gone over your head. To paraphrase: while it may turn out be the operative constitution, I haven't found the data or words to assure this is so. It says Govt. of SouthERN Sudan, not South Sudan. It's undated. How major a news source is Sudan Tribune? Major news sources make reporting mistakes all the time. Finally, I haven't failed to notice you echoed my point that the operative constitution was passed 7 July? Thanks for agreeing, but it doesn't add to the discussion. Hurmata (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've found that both the official government site (goss.org) and gossmission.org are quite out of date. The official website lists a deceased person as the Minister of Rural Development! As far as I can figure out, a draft constitution was published in April (this might be the one found on the Sudan Tribune site; not sure), and amended two days after (as above :P). It would be helpful if the GoSS did publish a copy of their constitution online. I really can't think of much else to say on this: I'll happily concede the status of the definite article before "Republic of South Sudan" (the GoSS official site does use only "Republic of South Sudan") once its published. IgnorantArmies^?! 11:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hurmata, is it really that hard to follow WP:NPA? Please refrain from insulting other users. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion: Exaggeration of numbers by the media?

However, some news reports and Christian organizations exaggerate the number of Christians in general and Anglican in particular to view the conflict with the north from religious and racial perception

For this claim three sources are provided. Those sources however are not substantiating what this sentence actually says - the are just reporting that a majority in South Sudan are Christians. They fail to support the claim that the number of Christians are exaggerated by the media and Christian organizations and that this is done in order to give the conflict a religious and racial perception. Gugganij (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. It seems very odd that this article downplays Christianity in South Sudan while other WP:RS have said it's quite widespread if not an outright majority religion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sentence in order to bring it in line with what the sources actually say. Gugganij (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Map on the infobox and additional map fixings.

If you click on to enlarge the map on the infobox and notice carefully, there is one small mistake, the borders between Syria and Lebanon are not depicted and it may look like they're a single nation... Can someone please fix it? The same mistake, with others more, can be found on the infobox map of Kenya which doesn't fit with the current political situation (for e.g. It still shows the border between North and South Yemen, whereas it lacks those between Sudan and South Sudan and those between Eritrea and Ethiopia). --Ecad93 (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good spots...but I suspect that this should be raised (if you are interested enough) on the talk page of the Template...Probably the editors here don't have the technical competence to fix it or interest to do so...Hope I am wrong. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Former discussion page

part of the earlier discussion is missing here: Talk:Southern Sudan, but exists on redirect page. 77.188.92.8 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that owes to an error I made when trying to execute the move. As I was kindly informed after that, Wikipedia discourages these so-called "cut-and-paste" moves (see WP:MOVE) for precisely this reason, as well as that it splits the edit history of both the article and the Talk page. So, learn from my mistake. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This was also brought up in an earlier thread here a couple of days ago (EDIT: my mistake, it was here). I'm going to routinely archive it (which is a legitimate cut and paste move, see MiszaBot which is one bot that does this on some talk pages) as an archive of this page, noting it carefully. I haven't done it yet like I said I would; I'll do it now. CycloneGU (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Talk:South Sudan/Archive1 CycloneGU (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AU member?

Is South Sudan actually a member of the African Union yet? The article says so, but here is no source in the first section and under foreign relations the source [8] was welcoming its independence, not admitting it to the AU. The article needs a proper source like [9] for the UN before saying SS is an AU member.--23230 ^talk 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

One hundred per cent agree; there are several cases here of the cart getting before the cart............Above I highlighted this in respect of the supposed SS application to join the Commonwealth etc......... 84.203.64.52 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On the AU, I agree. As for the Commonwealth, I am still unsure how you drew that conclusion from the source, which I thought made it clear that not only has South Sudan applied (the status of the paperwork being of little concern) but it has significant support inveighing toward admission. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the source....Where does it say SS "has applied"? If you paste the sentence where it says that I will happily withdraw my remarks. Simple as that. 84.203.64.52 (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there is any mention of an application. Perhaps more importantly wiki-wise, people are only adding these things to the lead and not the body of the article which isn't supposed to happen, per WP:LEAD. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a very common newbie error, it's up to more experienced editors to just fix them. Roger (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but I was just carrying on the tradition of complaining about something and then doing nothing to fix it, a tradition that has served humanity well for centuries. I've now done something to try to address the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Plans to join" is better phrasing - good thinking. I thought "South Sudan Launches Bid to Join Commonwealth" and "Riek Machar is leading a bid for the newly formed African nation to become the 55th member of the Commonwealth" strongly suggested that South Sudan had either applied or was in the process of applying, but the revised wording takes the emphasis off of (as I called it earlier) the "paperwork" and onto intention, which I think is quite clearly expressed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sean: that method of editing tends to serve me well, also. That is unless no one acts on my change, then I feel compelled to make it. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan Legislative Assembly

Some one has moved the old Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly article to South Sudan Legislative Assembly. That was wrong. A new article for South Sudan Legislative Assembly should be started; it is not the same body. There is a new Constitution now and it is the assembly of a sovereign state. I am an IP editor so I cant fix it. 84.203.64.52 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back. I also edited the content to the past tense and added a statement that it has been replaced by a new assembly. So now all that remains is to create the new article. What is the correct official name of the current assembly? (BTW I think this discussion should be moved to the project as it is not about this article.) Roger (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Sudan. Continue discussion there. CycloneGU (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: how Wikipedia cites the official name of the country

Should Wikipedia report, particularly in label of the InfoBox, that the "official name" of South Sudan includes the definite article? That is, should Wikipedia call this country Republic of South Sudan or The Republic of South Sudan? Hurmata (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two editors in particular have been claiming that the "official name" of South Sudan is not "Republic of South Sudan" but "The Republic of South Sudan", basing themselves on the opening clause of document that is purported to be the country's Transitional Constitution. According to press reports, the Transitional Constitution was ratified on 7 July 2011, which is two days before the country's indepedence. (I say purported to be because the document is hosted at the Website of an newspaper which is not an official newspaper, and there is no wording in the document itself or at the Website documenting the currency and authenticity of this draft of the Transitional Constitution. For example, the title page lacks a month and day.) As you read on, be aware that the sole official language of the new country of South Sudan is English.

I will proceed to make a comprehensive case against this notion, including several fresh arguments.

Basically, the proposal to include "the" contradicts English Wikipedia practice, typical academic practice generally, and even the practice in a language like French, which uses the definite article with county names more than English does. I will cite several examples from French Wikipedia in my discussion.

I have previously argued that the use of "the" is a grammatical issue in the use of English, not a part of the country name. My opponents have countered that the country of South Sudan's own take is the authoritative source, and they believe that a sentence in the new country's Transitional Constitution represents the assertion of the inclusion of "the".

A. Consider some examples of country articles in English Wikipedia. We have InfoBoxes entitled "People's Republic of China", "Kingdom of Spain", and "Republic of South Africa"; no definite article. Now proceed to consider their opening lines in the current versions (boldfacing is in the original). (1) "The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, is ....". (2) "The Republic of South Africa ... is ...." (3) "Spain ..., officially the Kingdom of Spain, is ...." The "the" is OUTSIDE the boldfaced official name in all these cases.

B. The Encyclopedia Britannica online (a professional encyclopedia) lists as official name "Republic of South Africa", not "The Republic of South Africa".

C. In French, the definite article is used even with short form names except after a preposition such as en, meaning 'in'. Yet in French the definite article is not considered part of "the name". Consider the following country articles from French Wikipedia. (1) France The article title and the InfoBox title are both just "France". The opening line reads: "La France [fʁɑ̃s], en forme longue la République française, est " = "The France, in long form the French Republic, is ...." As edited by French speakers, French definite article la is NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE "NAME", either short form or long form. It is not included in the boldfaced names France and République française. The same goes for French Wikipedia's articles on Spain, République Populaire de Chine (People's Republic of China), Afrique du Sud (South Africa), and Soudan du Sud (South Sudan). In regard to the latter, the editors' source is a fact sheet from the French government. The point in citing this language which is not English being, again, that this language uses the definite article more than English does.

That sentence from South Sudan's constitution seems to reflect a minor discrepancy in citation style between the governments of the United States and Great Britain — a discrepancy which the mavericks are not even aware of — this paragraph is my gift to them. The United States government, in particular the Department of State (Independent States in the World. July 15, 2011. Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State) and the World Factbook of the CIA, does not use the definite article in citing country names (either in lists or singly), names such as "Kingdom of Spain" or "Republic of South Africa". This is a point I have previously made on this Talk page. South Sudan's was once a British "colony"; and the UK government's own list of official country names DOES include the "the" with "republic of this" and "kingdom of that" (Geographical Names and Information. Revised March 2011. UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office). Does this bolster the maverick proposal?

I argue not. Again, the mavericks don't understand the issue, which is that context matters. In natural language phrases and sentence, when we use such long form country names we will also use the definite article for grammatical reasons: "troops of the Republic of South Sudan did such and such"; "The Republic of South Sudan is a country in northeastern Africa".

In conclusion, the maverick proposal is academically and grammatically naive and it contradicts English Wikipedia practice for country articles. The only possible defense arguing from tradition would lie with speakers of British English. I hope that educated speakers of British English will weigh in on this dispute. Hurmata (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The" - I will not hide that I was one of the two (isn't it more?) editors who supported including "The". The document does clearly say, "shall be known as 'The Rebublic of South Sudan'" in the very first article. However, even if it didn't, I would still argue that we should include it not only for South Sudan, but for all countries that have such a name. Why? Let's say you refer to Canada (easy example as that is where I am from). We don't have an alternate name that I am aware of. So when you say something about Canada, you would say, for instance, "Whenever I think of Canada, I think...". Now let's change that out with something like "United States of America". Do we say, "Whenever I think of United States of America, I think..."? Or do we say, "Whenever I think of the United States of America, I think..."? Same goes for South Sudan; when referring to the short form, it's fine, but if referring to the long form, you always preface the name with "the" in some way. So to me, it just makes sense to include "The" as part of the proper name on every country article and is a practice I would support within Wikipedia practices. CycloneGU (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and I would note that elsewhere in the ROSS constitution, the country is referred to as "the Republic of South Sudan" without capitalisation of the definite article. That being said, I object to Hurmata's repeated edits to the page without consensus. This is hardly so urgent a matter that it must be corrected before this discussion can be concluded. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with all of the comments made regarding grammar and the usual use of the definite article. But, if the official name of the country is to be included in the article exactly as it is in the constitution, which would have to be considered the "ultimate source" for the official name, then the name would have to be "The Republic of South Sudan", as found in the opening article of the constitution, assuming, however, that this constitution is the correct one, which has yet to be confirmed. However, as no other copy of the constitution can be found where the official name is just the "Republic of South Sudan", then one would assume we would use this one. IgnorantArmies^?! 02:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with IgnorantArmies. It is a tad pedantic, but that's the price of verifiability. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If it was the intent of the document's authors to enshrine "The Republic of South Sudan" as the official and proper usage, then why is the country elsewhere referred to throughout the constitution as simply "the Republic of South Sudan" without capitalisation of the definite article? If we're using that as our primary document (something I wholeheartedly support; the CIA is hardly the arbiter of truth and justice around the world), then it seems neither use is definitive, and we must revert to stylistic consistency vis a vis the rest of Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So, in the constitution we have only one time „The Republic of South Sudan” (+ two times in the beginning of sentence) and 29 times “the Republic of South Sudan”. Moreover constitution is officially titled “Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011” (not “Transitional Constitution of The Republic of South Sudan, 2011”), president is officially definited in the constitution as “President of the Republic of South Sudan” (not “President of The Republic of South Sudan), and on the coat of arms is inscription: “Republic of South Sudan” (not “The Republic of South Sudan”). Aotearoa (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The constitution is a primary source, and any interpretation we make of that source has to be backed up by reliable secondary sources. The lowercase "the" reading is supported by the United Nations [10], third party sources like the CIA World Factbook [11], the Government of South Sudan's website [12], and the Emblem of South Sudan itself. Also, a quick google news search for "Republic of South Sudan" would seem to indicate that news organizations more or less exclusively use the lowercase "the". I see nothing which supports the uppercase "The" reading, so it should probably be removed from this page as WP:OR. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Orange Tuesday - What you have said is absolute nonsense; The Constitution is not "a" primary source, it is "THE" primary source. Nothing. Absolutely nothing can detract one iota from its provisoins. Article 1 of the Constitution dealing with precise provision in question - the official name of the State - uses the words "The". Frankly, it probably should not have included the word "The" but it did. Nothing else, in any source whatsoever, overrides that. There is also no consensus to drop the word "The" from the article and accordingly I am going to undo the change. 84.203.64.52 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)