Talk:South Sudan/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The following discussions originally occurred at Talk:Southern Sudan, which is now a redirect. This is considered an archive of Talk:South Sudan as the article's home has moved.

Expansion

i plan on expanding this page greatly soon, the full works too. before that however, i need help creating some kind of template, or a list of things that are a priority.

- la gaie 02:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think there is an obvious part that everybody wants to see, but should be talked about- the independence referendum. Also existing disputes between the two countries, such as Abyei, oil resources and even ethnicity disputes between the tribes. I found some good articles on the globe and mail website if you need references. MrMonday1 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Kush

In the part of Establishment it does not mention Kush. I'm adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.179.161 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Kakua

When I was in Yei, most of the people I spoke with in the villages called themselves Kakua, and claimed that the majority of the people there are from the Kakua tribe. I'm curious to know why my reference to this was deleted from the page. hardpack 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

the Bari people

i would like to know why 141.168.126.44 on 22:33, 22 July 2005 deleted all mention of the Bari amongst nilotic tribes from the previous version (his own too!) justify yourself. i'm pretty sure the Bari are nilotic but prove me wrong. and even if not, why just delete them as if they don't exist?

- la gaie 02:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

New additions

I warmly welcome additions to this article, but I'm afraid I don't see much in the analysis that User:65.222.207.34 has added that isn't rather superficial and perhaps Amerocentric? (not to mention badly spelled and unsourced!). But I'll try to whip it into shape. (few minutes later:) I've cut most of the bits about the Arabic language and Islamist militancy, because frankly they make no sense. It's Khartoum and the Northern Sudan that have had links to Turabi and bin Laden; Arabic is not spoken in the South, except for a pidgin reputed to be unintelligible to most other Arabic speakers; and Islamism is quite unacceptable to both the political elites and the masses in this region where Christianity and tribal religions predominate. Quartier Latin1968 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The language spoken in S. Sudan is Juba Arabic--QL's description is correct. hardpack 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bari tribe?

A recent edit inserted the following underlined content:

The distinctive Juba Arabic language is a widely used lingua franca in Southern Sudan,this (arabi juba) deriving mostly from the Bari tribal native tongue. The Bari Tribe is considered the heart of Juba or ( Juba na Bari).

The Bari tribe is never mentioned in the article. If it exists it should be introduced earlier. Juba is given as the capital of Southern Sudan. What does it mean that the Bari Tribe is the heart of Juba? AxelBoldt 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Official language?

The text claims that English is the language of business and government, while the box to the right states that English and Arabic are official languages. Which is correct? AxelBoldt 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

These are by no means mutually exclusive statements. For example, in South Africa, English is the language in which most matters of government and finance are conducted. However, South Africa has ten other official languages (if I've counted right) – the operative word being 'officially', because in practice none of these languages is treated equally with English. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Official languages

internal constitution of Southern Sudan art6-1.“All indigenous languages of Southern Sudan are national languages and shall be respected, developed and promoted.” 6-2.“English and Arabic shall be the official working languages at the level of the governments of Southern Sudan and the States as well as languages of instruction for higher education.” 6-3.“There shall be no discrimination against the use of either English or Arabic at any level of government stage of education.” 6-4.“Without prejudice to sub-Article (3) above, and for practical considerations, English shall be the principal working language of government business in Southern Sudan.” 6-5.“In addition to English and Arabic, the legislature of any sub-level of government in Southern Sudan may adopt any other national language as an additional official working language or medium of instruction in schools at its level.” 6-6.“The Government of Southern Sudan shall promote the development of a sign language for the benefit of people with special needs.”

The Official langiages of Southern Sudan are English and Arabic.58.237.222.195 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)korea

Southern Sudan Population

I live in Southern Sudan and I am fairly certain that the population figures are inaccurate. There are 15 million people living in Southern Sudan. Could you please give a source for the 11 million figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorea1982 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Name

Are there any names for the region besides "South Sudan"? What name will they most likely pick if they become independent in 2011 (surely they won't keep calling themselves "South Sudan")Lexington1 (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The SPLA used to issue car license plates stating "New Sudan", but I have no idea if they're still pushing that name. I don't see why they wouldn't keep "Sudan"; it is derived from the Arabic from "lands of the blacks" and the many ethnic groups comprising the southern population don't appear to have a common name for the region in any other language. - Banyan Tree 08:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That might be strnage having Sudan, and its neighbor to the south, sudan.

Imagine the UN seat, --Jakezing (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No stranger than having two states in the US be Virginia and West Virginia. One would think that there'd be an East Virginia... Banyan Tree 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres logic behind that though. We don't call W.V Virginia, since we already got a virginia, thats why you cant have 2 countries with the exact same name.--Jakezing (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't have the same name. There would be two countries "Sudan" and "Southern Sudan/South Sudan", unless the southerners decide to change the name. - Banyan Tree 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides, there are two countries that are, identifiers notwithstanding, basically called "Congo". Krytenia (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it South Sudan or Southern Sudan? --Ruang rak noi nid mahasan (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's South Sudan http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12478957 Huseyx2 (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not "Oily Sudan" or "Amoco/BP Sudan" That would be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.1.113 (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Two civil wars

Can any place be POSITIVELY affected by a war on its territory? WeeWillieWiki (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up

The numbers for the stakes in blocks 3 and 7 don't add up to 100%. Is this due to a round-off error? WeeWillieWiki (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

fact tags removed

While I appreciate the work that has recently gone into the article, I have removed the {{fact}} tags from the section already tagged with {{unrefsect}}. These duplicate each other and the section tag is cleaner. The {{specify}} tags do something different and remain. - Banyan Tree 03:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Images and Stuff

I am trying to create a decent map of Southern Sudan in general and Central Equatoria that shows the States and counties by merging these two images; a satellite [1] image and a 'district map' [2] Some UN agencies have newer better maps but I don't know how to handle credit (my photoshop are kinda weak too) and if they're cool with all that. Can anyone help with this? la gaie (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

New Sudan

According to government of southern Sudan site, "New Sudan" is a motto which means the new Democratic Transformation in the country --Prof.Sherif (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Bor massacre

I have removed the Bor massacre section as being so badly written, accusatory and unreferenced that it would be easier for an editor who knew what they were doing to start from nothing than attempt to rewrite the existing text to conform to site guidelines. - Banyan Tree 21:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dewar210 is ruining this page

I'm losing of all the reverts we have to be doing now. You obviously have something to contribute but you can't just lie! there are 10 states in Southern Sudan. The three areas are not part of the south yet if ever, that is the cold truth. Likewise, this is not an independent country. You keep making a number of blatant POV statements that you need to support. Bashir is the President of ALL of Sudan regardless of how you and I feel about him as well. These are just the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La gaie (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oil in Southern Sudan

I think that soemone must create an article about Oil in Southern Sudan. Petroleum is the main subject of this region of Sudan today.Agre22 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Formatting

Recent edits have introduced spelling and gramatical errors and non-conventional formatting into this article. Can editors please discuss/preview their edits on talk, if need be I can proof for style, spelling and grammar. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

typo

This article is obviously locked and I don't know if this is the correct way to make a suggestion but the caption under the image of logs reads 'Loka teaks largest plantation in Sudan and Africa in particular' I think you mean 'Loka teaks largest plantation in AFRICA and SUDAN in particular' The other way doesn't make sense to me. To be honest it stills sounds odd but less odd, I guess.

A "Government" does not have borders...Opening sentence

I spotted this English language problem in the first two sentences: "Southern Sudan (officially known as the Government of Southern Sudan) is an autonomous government in Sudan. Juba is its capital city. It is bordered by Ethiopia to the east, Kenya, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the south, and the Central African Republic to the west. To the north lies the predominantly Arab and Muslim region directly under the control of the central government, with its capital at Khartoum. Southern Sudan includes the vast swamp region of the Sudd formed by the White Nile, locally called the Bahr el Jebel."

i.e. in Sentence 1, we say that "Southern Sudan" is a "Government" but in sentence 2, we say that the Government is "bordered"...Governments are not geographical entities...they do not have borders...I will amend so as to provide in sentence 1 that "Southern Sudan" is a region...Thanks. 109.77.103.222 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Christianity is the main religion of Southern Sudan nowadays. Those CIA Factbook data claiming only 5% of the total population of Sudan is Christian are way out of date; it's more like 20% now (and around 75% of the population of Southern Sudan). 98.209.116.7 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good point, and a topic that warrants additional discussion in the article. Considering the importance of religious differences in the overall conflict, the Religion section is rather weak, and confusing. The article is about Southern Sudan, but most of the religious references are to Sudan as a whole, and readers may not catch that. Some additional, and authoritative, cites would be helpful.--anietor (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

89.240.215.96 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC) If there is a more accurate figure, from an (at least) as credible reference for the early 1990s Christian population of southern Sudan than the library of congress one then please replace it.

89.240.221.108 (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC) User Bezuidenhout deleted the following text:

"According to the Federal Research Division of the US Library of Congress: "in the early 1990s possibly no more than 10 percent of southern Sudan's population was Christian".^[1]"

giving the reason: "not only is the data for the WHOLE of Sudan, but it is also 20 years out of date, alot has changed since then, you are displaying a false image"

In response:

  "not only is the data for the WHOLE of Sudan,"

The deleted text gives an estimate for "southern Sudan" and is taken directly from the referenced Library of Congress document where it can be checked in Chapter 2, Ethnicity, Regionalism and Ethnicity.

  "but it is also 20 years out of date"

The deleted text states the estimate is for "the early 1990s". I'm not aware of a more up to date statistic for the popultation in the early 1990s that differs radically.

  "alot has changed since then, you are displaying a false image"

A lot may have changed since the early 1990s, but the deleted text explicitly refers to the early 1990s.

I have searched up the figure and I don't understand how in the 1990s, 4-10% of Sudan was Christian, yet >10% of Southern Sudan was Christian. It seems like an unreliable link, especially since just before that it says how "Adequate contemporary data were lacking" at the beggining. I know you found this data from a fairly reliable source, but I just feel that information from another source would be useful. You also put down the sentance on its own, without stating that anything had changed. "In 1990 the UK had a white majority", I will assume so now, but in South Sudans case, many readers might as well. The percentage of people not only converting but announcing Christianity as their religion has increased rapidly. There is also no clear line between "traditional" and "christian" as there is often a mix of both, the data might only be counting people who exclusivley practise Christiantiy and have no traditional religion blend in it. Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bezuidenhout. This reference is internally inconsistent, and outdated. It presents a confusing and unreliable statistic, and its dominance in this section is inappropriate given its unreliability and age. --anietor (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

78.147.87.90 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"I have searched up the figure and I don't understand how in the 1990s, 4-10% of Sudan was Christian, yet >10% of Southern Sudan was Christian."

What don't you understand?

"It seems like an unreliable link, especially since just before that it says how "Adequate contemporary data were lacking" at the beggining."

Note the qualification 'possibly' in the sentence

"I know you found this data from a fairly reliable source, but I just feel that information from another source would be useful."

I think that's always a good idea, do you know of some?

"You also put down the sentance on its own, without stating that anything had changed. "In 1990 the UK had a white majority", I will assume so now, but in South Sudans case, many readers might as well. The percentage of people not only converting but announcing Christianity as their religion has increased rapidly. There is also no clear line between "traditional" and "christian" as there is often a mix of both, the data might only be counting people who exclusivley practise Christiantiy and have no traditional religion blend in it. Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)"

If this is the case, perhaps you should add this to the article with some credible supporting data and references?

Especially once the article refers to a country rather than a region, the infobox needs to include reliable statistics on what percentage of the population of South Sudan adheres to which religion. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there might be a missing or incomplete edit in this passage (see "a majority...in a minority"). I'm not familiar enough with the facts or the literature to fix it myself, but there seems to be a problem:

"Scholarly[75][76][77] and U.S. Department of State sources[11] state that a majority of southern Sudanese maintain traditional/indigenous beliefs with those following Christianity in a minority (albeit an influential one)."84.185.184.73 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Those sources indicate traditional beliefs are in an absolute majority so will change to "the majority". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.0.40 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Territory

As far as I can tell from the text of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, southern Sudan's territory is bounded by the 1.1.1956 frontier. According to [3], this corresponds mostly to the northern boundaries of Bahr el Ghazal states, Unity and Upper Nile, but it also includes a part of South Darfur in the southern Sudanese territory. If this is true, then the maps in this article ought to be corrected.--84.108.213.97 (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I also saw this, some maps showed southern, southern Darfur in southern Sudan, while others just place it in Darfur, and therefore Sudan. Most media (BBC maps etc.) place it in Darfur, and the Comprehensive Peace Aggrement seems to have changed since then. Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Currency

Will S.Sudan continue using the Sudanese pound after independence?

I would say for a while, untill they will issue their own currency to formalise the seperation. And they can also get their own seigniorage from the issue of their own currency. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

External links section

The number of External Links is flagged as being "excessive". I would remove all of them and start from scratch. Are there any suggestions as to which ones are worth keeping? Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Southern Sudan → South Sudan — Proposing that this article be moved to "South Sudan" and that other articles such as Politics of Southern Sudan be moved correspondingly. Acording to The New York Times, the southern government has decided that the new state will be titled the "Republic of South Sudan", with an official announcement expected in February when the result of the referendum is announced, almost certainly to be in favour of independence. The national anthem South Sudan Oyee! has already been titled.

It is also worth noting that many media organisations use "South Sudan" rather than "Southern Sudan" (Financial Times, BBC, Reuters, The Australian, The Economist, Telegraph etc.), although I should note that many organisations are inconsistant and use both interchangably depending on the writer. --The Celestial City (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit premature and the media still has a bit of preference for Southern Sudan. Marcus Qwertyus 00:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait until an official announcement is made by the government. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

They haven't achieved independance 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

They haven't decided on the new name yet either. It's been recommended, and the recommendation is expected to be accepted with little disagreement, but it hasn't happened yet. — kwami (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty much a done deal, I would be very surprised if there isn't an announcement confirming this in the next month. Given that "South Sudan" and "Southern Sudan" are essentially the same, there seems no reason not to move this article now. The Celestial City (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

hold on -- We need to await the outcome of the referendum. Assuming this leads to independence, we may get a new name. It will surely be one of the first things that an independent government will do to decide what the country should be called. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that "South Sudan" on its own doesn't necessarily imply an independent state any more than South Australia or South India does. As of now, the two names are equally valid names for the region. The Celestial City (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - not yet. It's still generally known as "Southern Sudan" at this point in time so that's how it should be remain. An interesting question will arise upon independence over whether we should keep a separate article on the current entity, as a part of greater Sudan, in addition to the article on the newly formed republic. If so, which one does this article get moved to? — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I will support this move when South Sudan begins to overtake Southern Sudan in the news. The rift between the two terms has narrowed in the past week. Right now there are 3,040 hits for Southern Sudan and 2,460 hits for South Sudan on Google news in the past 24 hours. Marcus Qwertyus 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It is in the news at CSMONITOR.COM. [4] user:mnw2000 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We should leave the page as Southern Sudan as this is the name of the autonomous region and autonomous government the page relates to. GoSS remains de jure and this page is about the autonomous region / government. When independence becomes a reality we should move the page to South Sudan if this is the short form name of the new state. Dn9ahx (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - No rush. There is an official date for the change over, so this one should be easy. Something where there is coup would be more difficult. Also, I assume that several countries will recognize the new country on that date. user:mnw2000 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Story regarding new name

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnJtOgHmd-Q&feature=youtube_gdata

We may want to start a subsection in Southern Sudan regarding the naming of the new country. user:mnw2000 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Currency

What will it be once independent?Phil Ian Manning (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked this above, and I guess it will probably keep using the Sudanese pound untill further notice, in other words they will probably eventually get a new currency. Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the website of the Government of Southern Sudan, ‘The new currency - the South Sudan Pound - will be introduced over the coming months.’. Should we mention this in the infobox of the new country already? 84.196.96.148 (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Article after eventual separation

I would suggest that after the eventual split we should have two articles - historical for South Sudan pre-2011-split and regular for South-Sudan-New-Name after-2011-split. Alinor (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A "Former Country" article could be created similar to the article about the Southern Sudan Autonomous Region that existed between 1972 and 1983. Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan could be a suitable title for such a page. It could include a brief history section, a politics section describing the structure of the autonomous government and information about the referendum and independence process. Dn9ahx (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start on this here - Talk:Southern Sudan/after independence - please help complete this. The article could "go live" at Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan when independence is declared. Dn9ahx (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The existing Southern Sudan article could be moved to South Sudan and edited to match the new reality. Dn9ahx (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not just have something like "South Sudan pre-2011 Referendum" as a title for a subsection? That would prevent having to continually switch articles to get information on one subject. MrMonday1 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The current government is called the Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan where it should be moved after independence. If the nation is still called South or Southern Sudan, then the new nation's article will be moved there. If the new nation is not called South or Southern Sudan we could create a disambiguation page. Please help create these pages for after the split, the links for them can be found at the top of this page. --Gimelthedog (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Article language

The article, at the moment, flips between US and UK English in terms of date formats and spellings. "A Defense Paper on Defence", "soccer" as well as other examples. As an Anglo-American I have no axe to grind either way, but is there a consensus as to in which this article was started? MrMarmite (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it will make sense to use British English, as Sudan is a former British-colony. Just an idea? It just won't seem correct to use American English? Try and deviate from using the actual terms, (e.g. use "independence struggle", instead of "ColoniSation/ColoniZation". Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it needs to be British English. Every language professor from Yale to Harvard knows that the Oxford English Dictionary is the only acceptable reference in the English language, and since the OED is in British English, shouldn't that be the standard? MrMonday1 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that the article should be in British English and I'm an American. I changed the "soccer" references to football a few days ago and while I do my best to put dates in day-month-year format, I may slip up sometimes on spellings.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as Sudan is a former British Colony, the use of BrEng makes sense. Also English is an official language of Sudan and usually former British colonies use BrEng (or a very closely related form such as in NZ, Australia, Ireland, India, Caribbean, RSA ect) due to the British influence (not proud btw). I'm not fussed between "ise" and "ize", as in "realise/realize"; both are acceptable in BrEng. Btw, does anyone know if English will be an official language of independent South Sudan? I suppose we shall have to wait until they release their Constitution. Also for those who are not sure on the difference between BrEng and AmEng see these for help:

They quite interesting article and can be useful for distinguishing the difference, I use them when editing article written in AmEng. IJA (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

English will almost definitley be an official language of South Sudan, simply because what other options do they have? Although the independence sorted out some linguistic/ethnic boundaries, there is still no predominant ethnic group/language (such as for example in Botswana, even there English is official). If anything "North" Sudan might even drop the English, and just completely convert to Arabic, like Algeria dropped French. Also, Colonize is definitley not used in BrE, we only use Colonise. Some American words have entered our side, such as "Encyclopedia" and "Airplane", but especially -ise remains. The best thing to do is to gently try to use different terminology to make it neutral as possible. :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Blue Nile / South Kordofan

It seems the reports so far were misleading – the states hold these »popular consultations« only over grievances with the implementation of the CPA, not about joining South Sudan.[5] Blue Nile has already held these consultations.[6] —Nightstallion 09:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion edits

Can we please try and agree on a the Religion section? All media says "Predominantly Christian and Animist". We need to remove the early 1990s citation about "no more than 10% were Christian". We need to vaguely state that there is currently a majority religion, which is a mix of Christianity and Animism. Bezuidenhout (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been searching for a better article, but according to this, http://www.sudanvotes.com/articles/?id=557 religious questions were not asked in the last census. This same article does state that "Christianity is the dominant religion in Southern Sudan," so I think we could change it to state that Christianity is the dominant religion. This could be a biased site, so I think we should find at least one other site. --Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Geography

There is a Geography section heading, then a flora and fauna sub-heading without any other sub-headings. There cannot be a heading with only one sub-heading. Either the geography section needs to be changed to include mountains, notable rivers, and other terain, or The geography heading should be removed leaving only the flora and fauna subheading. --Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Jikmier, south sudan

loca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.253.91 (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article name

The new name of Southern Sudan is South Sudan. The article's name should be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.133.49 (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article will change to South Sudan on 9 July - until then the entity is still known as Southern Sudan. Dn9ahx (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Recognition map

I have fixed the map of countries that plan to recongize S. Sudan. The fixes are: I have swiched the colors of the countries that plan to recongize to a dark green, which is similar to the Kosovo map. I have also removed Kosovo itself, since some of the coutries shaded in green (Russia, India, China, South Africa) do not recongize it. If Kosovo does end up recognizing S. Sudan, then I'll re-add it. Finnally I have fixed the N-S. Sudan border. I also plan to upload this map under the name Image:CountriesRecognizingSouthernSudan.PNG. I thought this would better to use after July. Hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 00:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work.

Could you also color in United Kingdom? There's a citation that indicates the UK acknowledges S Sudan, but it isn't colored. (I acknowledge that the correct response to this kind of pleas could be "why don't you do it" - if I could I would, but I haven't got a clue how to

Icarusgeek (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I've added the UK. Thinking about it I think it might better to keep the map where it is after July instead of changing the filename since its a filename after all. :-) - Thanks, Hoshie 16:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

New country article map

I changed it (before signing in) to an orthographical map, albeit not a standard one. If any one can obtain or create a standard one for the new state of south sudan that'd be great, also one for Sudan with south sudan seperated --Phil Ian Manning (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel to recognize Southern Sudan

Israeli officials in a parliamentary delegation in North America have stated that Israel shall recognize Southern Sudan as an independent state. They've also stated that once that state shall be declared independent - Israel will have full diplomatic relations with it. I cannot find an article in the English language that cites that - perhaps you can help me. - User:AvihooI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.42.80 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Country Status

As I type this on 19th June 2011 10:47 UTC, Sudan is still only one country as a whole. Southern Sudan gets its independance on 9th July 2011. Therefore I have changed the word country to region in the Southern Sudan article and wish that it shall only be changed once 9th July has passed. It is only 20 days away so refrain from altering this until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.107.76 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

History article of Southern Sudan

I think that article History of Southern Sudan should be written as soon as possible, because Southern Sudan will become independent on 9 July, and every independent African country has separate article about its history. I don't have enough knowledge about history of Southern Sudan to work on that article myself, so I appeal to editors with appropriate knowledge on the subject to do that. --Sundostund (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

At present the link brings you back to the Southern Sudan article, instead of to a new piece. I think the link should be deleted until the article is ready.Headhitter (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to throw something together using parts of the History of Sudan article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognition by Finland?

The reference has nothing to do with possible recognition by Finland, it's just an inivitation to a private independence celebration. I cannot find any source discussing the intentions of the Finnish government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.5.4 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognition by Germany

Germany has officially recognized South Sudan (taking effect on July 9), see [7] --DaQuirin (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Everybody chill, please

It's a little over an hour until 9 July dawns on Juba. At that time, as I understand it, the relevant workpage linked at the top of this Talk page will be moved to South Sudan, the workpage for the Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan will be moved to Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan, and this page will be turned into a disambig redirecting to both. Until that time, Southern Sudan is a part of the sovereign Republic of Sudan and there is no such thing as the Republic of South Sudan.

I doubt it's reasonable to expect this to work out in an orderly fashion, but if we could all just have some patience and try to work in concert, that would be great. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like the plan. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All units standby... lock wings to x formation... the sun is rising in Juba91.125.185.69 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern part of Sudan

As I stated in my edit summary, the term "southern Sudan" can still refer to a part of the Republic of Sudan. Just because South Sudan is now an independent state doesn't mean (North) Sudan doesn't have a south. "Southern Sudan" can, for example, refer to parts of South Kordufan, South Darfur, and Blue Nile. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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 [8] 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)

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)

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 [9]. 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.^[2]^[3]

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)

CycloeGU - This is one of those many occasions when you have to exercise judgment. You have to consider the likelihood that prss reporters (among the many hundreds of sources you mention) really are too concerned with legal niceties...Then you have to provide an explanation as to why the Speaker declared the Declaration at an opens session of the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly etc....You cannot simply treat all sources as equal. My source goes to the very man who read the Independence Declaration....The Holy See press release told us nothing at all. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC) [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NelsonSudan (talk • contribs) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For a simple example of being careful about what you read...This statement was re-produced in a large number of media publications (quoting Speaker James Wani Igga:

“We, the democratically elected representatives of the people, based on the will of the people of South Sudan, and as confirmed by the outcome of the referendum of self-determination, hereby declare South Sudan to be an independent and sovereign nation,”

Doing a Google check gave me About 10,300 results....An example is this [11] But the quote is wrong. The Speaker actually said this:

“We, the democratically elected representatives of the people, based on the will of the people of Southern Sudan and as confirmed by the outcome of the referendum on self determination, hereby declare Southern Sudan to be an independent and sovereign state. “

The differences here are subtle but actually significant. You can listen to the broadcast of the Speaker’s words on YouTube..The broadcast is included in the sources cited there. This is just one of many examples where you have to treat sources with caution. The same logic applies with regards to claims that independence took place at midnight. In actual fact, the significance of midnight was that it was from then on that Southern Sudan could declare independence. Regards. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:08, 18 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: [12] -- 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 [13] 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)

BBC agrees here EdwardLane (talk) 16:23, 9 October 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 [14] 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." Ignorant Armies^?! 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. Ignorant Armies^?! 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 

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 [15] under Government.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Kudzu1, the very next line uses "the Republic of South Sudan" (note the uncapitalized "the"). To me that says that it was never the intention for a capitalized "The" to be official. --Khajidha (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

^ Sudan : a country study / Federal Research Division, Library of Congress - Chapter 2, Ethnicity, Regionalism and Ethnicity http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sdtoc.html
^ Broadcast of Declaration of Independence (part 1)
^ [http://www.youtube.com/user/Laseranthem#p/a/u/0/v5m4JUyBW38 Broadcast of Declaration of Independence (part 2)

[1] Sudan : a country study / Federal Research Division, Library of Congress - Chapter 2, Ethnicity, Regionalism and Ethnicity http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sdtoc.html

[2] Broadcast of Declaration of Independence (part 1)

[3] [http://www.youtube.com/user/Laseranthem#p/a/u/0/v5m4JUyBW38 Broadcast of Declaration of Independence (part 2)

[1]

[2]

[3]

Expansion

Kush

Kakua

the Bari people

New additions

Bari tribe?

Official language?

Official languages

Southern Sudan Population

Name

Two civil wars

Numbers don't add up

fact tags removed

Images and Stuff

New Sudan

Bor massacre

Dewar210 is ruining this page

Oil in Southern Sudan

Formatting

typo

A "Government" does not have borders...Opening sentence

Religion

Territory

Currency

External links section

Requested move

New Story regarding new name

Currency

Article after eventual separation

Article language

Blue Nile / South Kordofan

Religion edits

Geography

Jikmier, south sudan

Article name

Recognition map

New country article map

Israel to recognize Southern Sudan

Country Status

History article of Southern Sudan

Recognition by Finland?

Recognition by Germany

Everybody chill, please

Southern part of Sudan

In Arabic

The flag

Page history

state map

Remember to replace all other maps of Africa in other articles

Protect against vandals

South Sudan -> Republic of South Sudan

Renaming of the Coat of Arms

Project

Categories

Religion (July 9, 2011)

Red Links

Time of independence

Bid to join international organizations

Internet Code

A minor note on consistency

Official languages: Both English and Arabic

Christianity and civil war

Oil.

Offensive word in history section

name

name of northern Sudan

Debunking the claim to use the definite article