Talk:South Sudan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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.[[1]]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 [2] was welcoming its independence, not admitting it to the AU. The article needs a proper source like [3] 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Let's just finish this now, it's apparent one editor will never agree and continue to point to one single line of text for eternity. CycloneGU (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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 [4], third party sources like the CIA World Factbook [5], the Government of South Sudan's website [6], 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. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't nonsense. We follow the secondary sources and say what they say. "THE primary source" means nothing in Wikipedia. Also, the only people who should be making changes while there's an RfC are editors who want to get themselves reported and blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
First, Again it is plain nonsense - a secondary source cannot override a primary source when the primary source is 100% clear on the point (as the ROSS constitution is). Second, This is an abuse of process; the "status quo" is the use of the word "The". It should remain with the word "The" until any change is agreed. There is no consensus for the change to drop the word "The". Do other Editors here agree that a minority here are abusing the process? NelsonSudan (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I should add Sean Hoyland that you may not be a lawyer or judge, but surely you can appreciate that a Constitution is the supreme law of the land and what it says in terms of the name of a state or the names of its institutions is absolutely final and supremem - as simple as that....Are you familiar with that concept? If not, it might be worthile for you to actually read the ROSS Constitution or generally about the significance of Constitutions...You may not fully appreciate how significant a Constitution is...the supreme law of a land. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, I submit this is an abuse of process; the "status quo" is the use of the word "The". It should remain with the word "The" until any change is agreed. There is no consensus for the change to drop the word "The". Do other Editors here agree that a minority here are abusing the process? NelsonSudan (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Takes the soapbox.
Alright, who's next? =)
Kidding aside, exactly what he said. I can't find any points to add to this; if THE primary source - the Constitution - states it one way, we MUST do it that way. No questions. CycloneGU (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it appears the constitution says it more than one way. And Wikipedia is not an excercise in constitutional law; it is an encyclopedia based on secondary sources. Jonathunder (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if it's "a" primary source or "the" primary source. Hell I don't care if it's the only primary source that ever existed in the history of mankind. You can't base your edits solely on primary sources. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, and all interpretive claims about primary sources must be referenced to a reliable secondary source. This is all part of WP:OR, which is a core content policy of Wikipedia. Your position is based on your interpretation of the Constitution of Southern Sudan, and you have not produced a single source that we can use to verify your claim. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no sources have been produced to counter the constitutional article stating it, either. I don't care that secondary sources do not refer to it as such; they use their own conventions just like we do. We're using the primary source to give the proper name of the country. What is so wrong with that? CycloneGU (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong is that it violates WP:OR, which is one of our most important "conventions". You may not care what the secondary and tertiary sources say but those sources are the basis of this project, and if you can't find a single one of them that supports your claim then you do not have enough evidence to include it in Wikipedia. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The first article of the constitution violates WP:OR?
Regarding this, if the majority of editors choose to abandon the "The", I will have to respect it, but note that I still do not agree with it until a revised version of the constitution surfaces that does not have that specific article in it. Also, while in prose it might be appropriate to use known as the "Republic of South Sudan", I still think in the infobox that "The" is appropriate. You would never say "Republic of South Sudan" without "The" or "the", it doesn't sound natural. CycloneGU (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Basing an edit on a primary source when you have no secondary source to back up your interpretation violates WP:OR. This is true whether or not a constitution is involved. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
As for the second point, you would never say United States of America or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or People's Republic of China without "the" either, but there they sit in their respective infoboxes without definite articles. This is the style we have adopted for country articles. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Ironic how that is considered WP:OR - providing information only you know to be true is what I consider OR, but what do I know?
And I'm not arguing that the style adopted sitewide is the style adopted sitewide. I just think including "The" in the infobox makes more sense and would be a good addendum to the policy. But again, that's just me. CycloneGU (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
OR is defined on the WP:OR page we keep linking to. Read that page, especially WP:PRIMARY, and you'll see how it applies to what we're talking about. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they have. Read the next sentence or two in the ROSS constitution. The constitution is not consistent in its usage, as Aotearoa and Jonathunder have observed, and as a result, it is necessary to consider secondary sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

<- There seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding of policy here. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources as a matter of non-negotiable mandatory policy so repeatedly claiming that document X whether it's a constitution, the Bible, Koran, anything, is absolutely final and supreme etc is a waste of time. This is a reliable secondary source. It says "Full name: Republic of South Sudan". That is an example of the kind of source that has to be used to resolve this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, in terms of argument - what is the point. Editors here claiming that the specific provision of the Constitution dealing with the State's name is not the definitive source. That is plain nonsense. It is not OR to read the Constitution either. To say it is, is plain nonsense again. As for the claim "it appears the constitution says it more than one way." Art. 1 of the Constitution is the article that establishes the states name. It is absoluteley clear and says "The Republic of South Sudan". Wikipedia is for amateurs....and this is one of the best examples....Editors arguing that some other source or sources is more definitve than the Constitution! Finally, I repeat that there is an abuse of process here because the article included the word "The"; it has been dropped without consensus. NelsonSudan (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This isn't an argument or a negotiation to find consensus based on personal opinions about whether a primary source is definitive. There are zero degrees of freedom. It doesn't matter in the slightest what editors think is definitive. Editors aren't reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. That's it. It's very simple. Editors who disagree with that approach should make a case for changing Wikipedia policy. In the meantime that is policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think getting angry and hitting out at other users is the best way to support your points, either. I may be an "amateur" but it seems clear to me that not even the ROSS constitution takes the capitalization of "the" as gospel, and reliable secondary sources have disregarded what appears to be an obvious anomaly in the document. It's 29:1 within the constitution in favor of "the Republic of South Sudan", and I have yet to find a reliable secondary source that capitalizes the definite article. I don't feel I need to be insulted or mocked for reaching that conclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think NelsonSudan is missing the point a bit too. Secondary sources are preferred precisely to avoid a situation where "amateurs" make interpretive claims of definitiveness using primary sources. The secondary source rule is there to protect Wikipedia content from "amateurs". Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just visited the official Website of the GoSS (Government of South Sudan). The national seal reads, "Republic of South Sudan. Justice, Liberty, Prosperity". (I.e., not "The Republic".) As of today, there's a photo of the national flag flying on a flagpole, and the caption reads, "Flag of the Republic of South Sudan flying high in the sky". (I.e., not "The Republic".) Hurmata (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you know! There was no need to notice the national seal at another Website because not only are the full name and the national motto inscribed on the seal's outer ring, they are both in the "emblem" that occupies the center of the seal, on banners held by the eagle. And the emblem image in the InfoBox links to an article where both the emblem and the seal are displayed large scale. Hurmata (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops, my apologies to the two (at least two) editors who already reported on these facts a day and a half ago. I hadn't noticed. Ouch! Hurmata (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The national seal reads, "Republic of South Sudan. Justice, Liberty, Prosperity".
In that instance, I can accept removing "The" as a definitive article. That would definitely be a reliable source not based off of respective sites' naming conventions. CycloneGU (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case, we'll have consensus if NelsonSudan is willing to drop his opposition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Consensus does not require absolute unanimity, so we do have consensus. Roger (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Objections have to be based on policy or else they aren't relevant to establishing/measuring WP:CONSENSUS. NelsonSudan's objection isn't based on policy, it's based on a personal opinion about one statement in a primary source. To be fair, the same could be said about dropping the "The" because of a national seal. Not sure where that leaves things or whether it's time to just move on. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This section, essentially on whether to capitalize the "T" in "the" is already pretty long. Let's move on. Jonathunder (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course I don't agree with dropping the term "The". The Constitution is the only source that matters. It could not be clearer on the point; It says, as has been noted:

South Sudan is a sovereign and independent Republic, and it shall be known as “The Republic of South Sudan.”

Editors can choose to ignore the fundamental law of the South Sudanese State if they wish. Wikipedia will be all the poorer for the decision. It certainly is not up to academic standards. NelsonSudan (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Please continue reading through the constitution and report back on how closely it follows "the fundamental law of the South Sudanese State". Is the constitution "not up to academic standards" for referring to the country as "the Republic of South Sudan" 29 times? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kudzu1 - In the Info bar; and in the opening words of the article, we state the official name; thats the usual convention on Wikipeida. It's not up to academic standards because we are ignoring what Art. 1 of the Constitution says. That is the provision that specifies what the name of the State is. The fact that it is not uppercase "T" throughout the Constitution is of no consequence; In places the country is even referred to as "the State" or simply "South Sudan"...This is quite typical in a Constitution. It is the Clause specifying the State's name that matters - no other Clause. It really is that simple. A related point is that the foot note for the source for the name of the State is the CIA website; Clearly we feel uncomfortable citing the Constitution...Because we know the Constitution says something different...but we (I am talking about the Editors arguing for this "drope the "The" change") are happy to ignore the Constitution.NelsonSudan (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, looks like I'm just going to have to take you up on your "Editors can choose..." offer. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia, please can we put it to a vote? I expect I will loose; but, for the record, I'd rather a vote be held all the same. Below I will set out room for Editors to vote. I will put my vote section second to avoid argument. Voting should last for, say one week ending on 29 July 2011. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I think this quote from the Constitution is relevant in case people don't appreciate what a Constitution is:

This Constitution derives its authority from the will of the people and shall be the supreme law of the land. It shall have a binding force on all persons, institutions, organs and agencies of government throughout the Country.(Art. 3(1)

. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Vote on Official Name

Official name is "Republic of South Sudan." because many secondary sources say so including even the Official Motto of the country; the United Nations website; and the USA's CIA website. If you agree, please vote "Agree" below.

  • Agree. Should be noted South Sudanese constitution refers to "the Republic of South Sudan" 29 times and "The Republic of South Sudan" once, and other official documents and emblems call the country "Republic of South Sudan" without a capitalized definite article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. Why are we wasting our time with this? We have one person not already a part of the consensus who insists on carrying this out as long as he can. The emblem does not include the definitive article. That's enough for me. Further, this is not a standard polling procedure, normally we either agree with or oppose something. CycloneGU (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Concur. This is a waste of time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Official name is "The Republic of South Sudan" because Article 1 of its Constitution says "South Sudan is a sovereign and independent Republic, and it shall be known as “The Republic of South Sudan.” If you agree, please vote "Agree" below.

The discussion above is abundantly clear; we don't need a vote. This past the point where it contributes usefully to the article, and is nearly at the point of being disruptive. Please don't continue this. Jonathunder (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm boldly closing this. The discussion has run its course. CycloneGU (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guinea Worm

South Sudan is the country where in excess of 99% of the world's remaining incidents of Guinea Worm Disease occur. It's therefore probably the only place in the world you could reasonably expect to see a Guinea Worm, in a "last chance to see sense" since we are intentionally making the worm extinct because of its impact on human health. Not clear where "diseases which are practically unique to this country" would live in the article though. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Humanitarian situation, perhaps? Post some WP:RS; I'd like to see this added, if there's something to it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I just read the article about the disease. That is sickening to even think about. I hope they can indeed eradicate it completely. CycloneGU (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't warrant its own section. However, it's worthy of mention, since it's now so distinctive of this country. The disease already has its own article. This is an easy topic to research. And don't forget that progress against this disease has been rapid in the last ten years alone. Hurmata (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Radom National Park

Is Radom National Park, formerly in the southwest corner of South Darfur, part of South Sudan? The CIA map shows it as such, and another CIA map indicates that the 1956 autonomous region included it. The CIA factbook doesn't list it as disputed. A lot of maps are going by the old province boundaries, and I can't find any sources other than the CIA, though I'd trust the CIA on this more than the media. Alas Google News turns up no results on the matter. --Quintucket (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There's that issue and the issue of whether the South Sudanese territory south of the Abyei Area is part of Northern Bahr el Ghazal (which de jure administers Abyei under the ROSS constitution) or Warrap state. I think we may have to wait for a definitive map to come out because of the amount of conflicting and outdated information floating around, even on Sudanese and South Sudanese government websites. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Capital city

Hi. There seems to be a budding little edit war on this issue. Can somebody please post a source here giving the official capital city. Hopefully that will end the issue. Thanks. Fainites barleyscribs 10:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The capital city is Juba, and the edit warrior is a user who created an account solely to make the same edit (changing mentions of "capital" in the infobox, including template formatting, and intro, to "temporary capital") over and over again without discussion or citation. As far as I can tell, it's utter nonsense. Juba is the undisputed capital of South Sudan, and it has been since before independence. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know. That is why I am asking someone to link to a source that states what the capital city is. Then that's the end of the argument.Fainites barleyscribs 10:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Ta.Fainites barleyscribs 10:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not so fast! A little searching has revealed that the "edit warrior" actually is not as misguided as it seems - http://www.sudantribune.com/South-Sudan-to-establish-a-new,37886 - We really should say something about this in the article (and maybe teach the "warrior" a little about citing). Roger (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Whether he's got a valid point or not, he's still edit warring. That being said, while it's an interesting article and I'm not opposed to mentioning it, I'm automatically a bit leery of an article by a news outlet not actually based in the country, making a claim that sounds far-fetched at best (not that building planned capital cities in the middle of nowhere is a new phenomenon in Africa, but it's likely that South Sudan is literally the poorest country in the world and it barely has the infrastructure to support a ramshackle city the size of Juba, let alone build a new one from the ground up), and apparently not picked up on by any larger news organizations or even followed up on by the same organization. It's certainly not enough to go around calling Juba the "temporary capital", since even if this legislation was adopted, the project is hardly imminent. Was anybody calling Rio de Janeiro the "temporary capital" of Brazil back in the 1950s when Brasilia was but a twinkle in Oscar Niemayer's eye? -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I did find this article from February, which sounds like a PR move by the Lakes state government, and also this article from earlier this month, which has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it quote from a South Sudanese government spokesman saying the government is considering a proposal to build a new capital at Ramciel. So, I think it's worth mentioning, but premature to say for certain that Juba is a "temporary capital" or that this new capital is definitely being built. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we could have a paragraph about the issue saying that there are various competing "lobbies" for the idea of a new purpose built national capital with three or four (closer reading of the sources required)proposed locations. From the articles I've just skimmed through it seems the structural problems in Juba and the local level politics actually makes building from scratch a cheaper option than trying to redesign Juba. Roger (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I fixed up and added citations for the Ramciel article (still a stub), though I'm unclear whether there's an existing settlement there, whether it's a county, a traditional area, what have you. The Gurtong article mentions a "chief" of Ramciel, who is quoted in the article. I'd have to dig deeper. Bloody mess trying to find information on some of these little-known corners of Africa, but I guess that's what Wikipedia is for. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
A few more sources (not all necessarily citable) to sift through: Al Jazeera (on Youtube); Radio Netherlands; Bill Gates Foundation donates $5m for South Sudan capital (to improve Juba instead of going elsewhere); South Korea to assist in the planning of South Sudan’s new capital; The search for new nation’s capital in South Sudan. I hate to hit and run like this but I really must leave now (meatworld commitments) Have fun! Roger (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine. He was edit warring but he is a new editor so hopefully he will be able to see now how sources are used and discussed.Fainites barleyscribs 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The government friday the 2th decided to change the capital city from Juba to Ramciel 240 kilometers north along the Nile river. For confirmation see external site 'Sudan Tribune' http://www.sudantribune.com/South-Sudan-relocates-its-capital,40027 Wachtwoord555 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Official languages

Yes, I know the World Factbook says Arabic is an official language. And that would be great except for the fact that the constitution says English is the official language, with no mention of Arabic. I think it at least deserves a footnote to the infobox saying as much. Obviously it's a new country, it's a country with very poor infrastructure and a barely functional government (a transitional government as that, working off a transitional constitution), so not all the facts are going to be laid out in front of us in a completely cohesive way. But I have qualms about including Arabic as an official language with no South Sudanese official source saying it is, especially with no annotation to that effect. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The BBC source also says "Major languages: English, Arabic (both official), Juba Arabic, Dinka, others". I don't think there is a policy based reason not to say what the CIA and BBC secondary sources say. Requiring "official sources" opens a can of worms. That could be used to question/footnote anything and everything. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There's also this. And more tellingly: "The Official working language of the Government will change from English and Arabic to only English, though all indigenous languages of South Sudan will be respected and promoted. South Sudan will remain a secular state." I further note that the BBC profile was last updated 5 July 2011, prior to independence. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the fact that we have a WP:RS in the form of the official government specifically superseding those other sources is enough to justify removing Arabic from the infobox or relegating it to a footnote directing from "official languages" to the bottom of the box. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yup, those sources convincingly indicate that the CIA/BBC's info is out of date on this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
They had a war against the Arabic speaking "northern" Sudan - How anyone could think they would embrace the language of the enemy is mind boggling! Roger (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about mind boggling. Arabic is an official language in Israel and South Sudan have in effect embraced the language of the former colonial occupation forces. They'll still need to collaborate with the north to operate the oil fields. What's perhaps more surprising is that they haven't decided to have Mandarin as an official language which might make sense in the long term. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking Swahili or Luganda (the adoption of neither of which within the next couple of years would surprise me). But that too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Re. "Yes, I know the World Factbook says Arabic is an official language. And that would be great except for the fact that the constitution says English is the official language,". I can't help but remark how carefully some editors take SOME of the Constitution's provisions...but not others! I am referring of course to our earlier discussion about the official name of the country under its constitutino. Obviously Arabic should not be treated any different to any other language not mentioned in the Constitution. NelsonSudan (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We're not relitigating that old discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The CIA/BBC info was from before July 9. Back then, Arabic was considered an official language. The constitution is the most up-to-date source on this topic, and it says Arabic is NOT an official language. End of story. The discussion about "The" on the name was also notable in multiple secondary locations, but this discussion isn't. And that's really the end of that issue, for both discussions. CycloneGU (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Referring to some of the most recent comments in this heading, wherein it is conjectured that Arabic, Chinese, Luganda, Swahili might be or should be declared official languages of South Sudan. These proposals are giddy and ignorant, made amid a deliberate refusal to test them by making comparisons with practice elsewhere. Official languages are for internal administration. For country X to make the languages of its major neighbors or trading partners into its own official languages — the only example I'm aware of is Uganda elevating Swahili — is so rare that to expect it will happen elsewhere is nonsense. French is not an official language of Germany. When French and Germans have to "deal with each other", you seek out Germans who speak French, or you do mutatis mutandis, or you use a third language. The only reason why sub-Saharan African countries make some European language into their official language is almost none of them have a dominant indigenous language. (Exceptions are Botswana and Somalia.) In most cases, e.g., South Sudan, the most widely spoken language claims less than 20 percent.

The remark about Swahili expands the mythology about Swahili that arose in the US in the 1960s. Out of 50 odd sub-Saharan former colonies, just one, Kenya, seized the imagination of African-American militants in the 1960s. The reason is that Kenya was the sole colony that had had a significant armed rebellion, and this violence held romantic appeal to some racial militants. Since Kenya was cultivating Swahili as its indigenous official language, the acclaim given Kenya led racial militants to believe that Swahili was the main language of black Africa. The truth was that Swahili was official in only two countries. After the Ugandan civil war ended in the 1990s, Uganda added Swahili to Uganda's official languages. Very few people are aware that it was the British colonial administration that was responsible for promoting Swahili as an official language in Kenya and Tanzania between 1920 and 1960. Hurmata (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Japan is a permanent commercial and technical leader in the auto and consumer electronics industries. Obviously, that leads Western countries to make Japanese an official language, right?! Hurmata (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, for my part, I wasn't proposing any changes to the article. South Sudan is obviously quite dependent on Kenya and Uganda as trading partners, so it was a semi-facetious suggestion that Juba may give those trade languages some official status. But, need I remind: WP:NOTAFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
And looks like I was right about Swahili, at least: [7] -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Juba Arabic

In the last several weeks, with the surge of interest in this article caused by the country's independence, one or more editors have repeatedly inserted claims that exaggerate the importance of any variety of the Arabic language in the demographic makeup of South Sudan. Arabic is not an indigenous language there, at least not in a normal sense. And the Ethnologue claims only about 30,000 speakers of Juba Arabic, which is well under one percent of the country's population. Sudananese Colloquial Arabic is definitely not an indigenous language, it belongs to the neighboring Sudan. Knowledge of either Sudanese Colloquial Arabic or of Modern Standard Arabic as second languages is not an ethnographic fact, not a demographic fact. In articles on other countries, say, European ones, one doesn't report the widespread proficiency in English in the sections on ethnic composition and language communities. Do likewise for South Sudan. Hurmata (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If I were to hazard a guess, the importance of Arabic is exaggerated out of proportion to its number of primary speakers due to its prior use as a co-official language and the partiality of the Sudanese government toward Arabized South Sudanese. The mayor of Juba, for example, has an Arabic name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going through the hundred or so articles that have an {{Infobox language}} or {{Infobox language family}} box and link to Sudan, rd'ing here where appropriate. You might want to consider creating {{South-Sudan-ethno-group-stub}} to parallel {{Sudan-ethno-group-stub}}. — kwami (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A font is used in the Coat of Arms

It's likely on an invisible layer. When Illustrator opens the .svg file it does a font replacement and then there are duplicate words (justice, liberty etc.. Needs to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.39.138 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 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. 08OceanBeachS.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)
On a slightly related note, doesn't this seem like something that could be automated? Like, instead of using a specific image, one could have an image-creation template like {{world map |country=South Sudan}}. Then when the world map changed there would only be a small amount of editing to some master copy that would propagate to all instances of the world map template. You could also have similar templates for other commonly-used maps, such as individual continents. Does anyone know how I could go about suggesting this? Augurar (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2012 (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)

The Most Moronic Thing I Have Ever Read on Wikipedia (Mr. Kiir has no muslim son)

who said that Mr. Kiir has a muslim son? that's ridiculous! Mr. Kiir has no son named John itfp! retarded arab spread that crap in the day of celebrating the new country to feel good. guys to be honest it's now weeweepedia not wikipedia with bullcrap like that!--WineHouse (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a citation which agree that President Kiir does NOT have a Muslim son
http://allafrica.com/stories/201108231517.html
The article states "The President also castigated the Akhir Lahza newspaper publishing from Khartoum, which published a false story against him that his son from a fourth wife called John Salva Kiir has become a Muslim before the declaration of South Sudan independence. President Kiir said he has neither a fourth wife nor a son called John." Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
What in the name of Muhammad-was-a-pedophile does Weewee mean? Read WP:CIVIL And WP:FORUM, if you want to make comments on a valid point do so without the comments you made4 after "itfp". --Nutthida (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
In Jamaica, "weewee" generally mean urine (a la the US "pee-pee"), or be extention, penis. That seems to be how it's used here. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 15 October 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. ----

Sudan was not a British protectorate. In law it was a condominium, nominally under joint British and Egyptian rule. Cf. Vanuatu (formerly the New Hebrides), which was a condominium under joint British and French rule, and which as an independent nation is a member of the Commonwealth. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

Egypt was never a British colony. It was an autonomous Khedivate (including what is now South Sudan) owing technical fealty to the Ottoman Empire, which came under British occupation in 1882, but which was never part of the British Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.81.209 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see what Egypt has to do with the price of fish, but it was a British protectorate from 1914 to 1922, so was certainly part of the British Empire during that period. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC).
Mozambique has no historic connection to Britain at all yet it was accepted into the Commonwealth - so the precedent has been set that the Commonwealth membership is open to any applicant regardless of its connection to the UK, or lack therof. Roger (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan applied for membership of the Commonwealth in 2011. Although it won't be considered until the next Commonwealth heads of government meeting in 2013 although it is likely to take longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.237.194 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A useful source?

Maybe some of the material in this report about the security and stability of the country can be included in the article. Roger (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Internal and external struggles such as colonial-style exploitation (from Dallas)

Arri Coleman (source) reports that a fictitious company handed over about million hectares of inhabited forestland for $25,000 USD, which was signed-off by a local elder. The lessor, Nile Trading and Development Inc (NTD), a Dallas Texas-based company headed by former US ambassador, will hold the land for 50 years. Local tribesmen are resisting the take-over; perhaps they may take the fight to Dallas. Other sources: Redd Monitor, Oakland Institute.

This is the type of struggle that needs to be documented in articles like this to show if African nations can become able to defend their aboriginal cultures and maintain the natural and traditional public domain in the face of people like, well, the civilized "us." Related issues are inter-tribal fighting, and the internal corruption feeding that feeds all these problems. --John Bessa (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Oakland institute halted this land deal by directly getting involved in South Sudan (source).--John Bessa (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of legumes in South Sudan

It would seem apparent that one of the best benefit for an highly=impoverished nation is the implementation of protein-rich vegetable nutrition (the other being birth-control--which coincides with std amelioration). I have seen a sweet-pea species grow in the salt water of the beaches near-by in Maine (USA). Can species like these be hybridized to reclaim dying Africa?--John Bessa (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this article only for Anglo-saxson people saying 68 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit?

68 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit and March being the warmest month with average temperatures ranging from 73 to 98 degrees Fahrenheit.[66] How much is it in Ce. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.7.250.20 (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Language

Having followed South Sudanese affairs closely since independence, I am surprised at how widespread the Arabic language still is there. All government officials seem to use Arabic when conversing with the population, most of the population seems most comfortable giving media interviews in Arabic, the Juba university switch to English is proving to be a major obstacle for most students (they are translating classes live in one direction or in the other), and even state TV (SSTV) seems to use Arabic frequently (usually?). This is very curious (though not surprising, due to the country's historical ties to the rest of Sudan and the rest of the Arab world) and warrants research to improve the language section. Currently it suggests that Arabic plays no real role, which seems to be wishful thinking, or bias. | Moemin05 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you input Moemin05 and it does sound possible what you're saying and I will happily add more info. if you have some sources to show this? :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Games and Sports update

I was thinking of adding a paragraph

Guor Marial who was born in South Sudan but escaped as a stateless refugee at the age of 8 and grew up in the United States will be competing at the 2012 London Olympics under the Olympic Flag. South Sudan has no Olympic Committee and cannot send him but he qualified at time trials and will represent the people of South Sudan if not the State. He does not wish to compete under the Sudanese Olympic delegation due to his personal history.

http://www.indystar.com/article/D2/20120721/NEWS/307210041/Former-ISU-athlete-runner-without-country-compete-Olympics?odyssey=nav%7Chead

--Patbahn (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Source number 30, the tranditional constitution

The link is to a doc file of the constitution, but the actual file retrieved is a (mis-extensioned) jpeg of someone I do not recognise. Someone fix this! 77.96.228.232 (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the URL. Thanks for spotting that. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nile Republic

Why isn't there a word mentioning that the name Nile Republic was suggested to the country? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Demographic section: Religion

I changed the introduction of the demographic section and the religion section itself to reflect the fact that sources disagree whether there is an animist or Christian majority in South Sudan. E.g. Some U.S. State Departments sources (Int. Religious Freedom Report 2012) state, that there is a Christian majority, some say there are more animists. Gugganij (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete

The demographics secton doesn't highlight the ethnic composition of the country which is crucial.

Also need some mention of the agricultural base of its economy which is 2nd to oil.v (Lihaas (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)).

Recent edits

Recent edits to this article by new and unregistered users may have been done in good faith, but are unreferenced, ungrammatical, unencyclopedic, and break template formats. The user or users concerned have so far shown no willingness or ability to learn how to edit capably. I've sought semi-protection of the article until this issue is resolved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The last edit by 122.210.229.90 in the Education section for one, changing from an 8 + 4 + 4 system to the vague 8 + 4 + 3 (or 4 or 5).There's nothing wrong with being new, but we must insist on sources, or grammar at least. la gaie (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The audio pronunciation file of the word Sudan in the lead section does not match the IPA written pronunciation. The written pronunciation is: /ˌsaʊθ suˈdaːn/

In the audio file, I believe it is: /suː'dæn/

Which is correct?

Both are correct, depending where you're from (GB, US, Aus, etc.). It doesn't match because Wikipedia has a stupid non-standard system for showing pronunciations, which looks like the standard IPA system, but isn't, thus confusing everyone. This should be changed but would only be reverted by one of the enforcers of aforementioned system. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a: and æ are the same in standard IPA either. Wikipedia IPA uses those the same as standard IPA. Do you think that the spelling in the lead section should match the audio file? That's what I really mean. Mechanic1c (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, although I think the other pronunciation should also be given as an alternative, even if we don't have an audio file for it. But in Wikipedia's flawed system, which is being used here, a: means "the same vowel that you have in BATH". This is of course wrong for at least three reasons: 1) it's original research (and likely incorrect for many speakers), 2) there should be no "you" but objective facts, 3) few people will guess that this is what it means (you can find an explanation, of sorts, by clicking on the pronunciation, but people who know IPA will have no reason to do that). But this is what is happening. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand now. I was confusing ɑː with a:. I see how that spelling fits the two possible pronunciations. That sounds like the kind of vowel that would differentiate with opposing English accents, but the name Sudan is derived from Arabic, so maybe the two should indeed be specified; it's not dependent on an English accent so much as the transcription from Arabic to English. Mechanic1c (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 external links on South Sudan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Official name

Is the official name of South Sudan the "Republic of South Sudan" or the "Federal Republic of South Sudan"?(24.205.83.199 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC))

Wusta listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wusta. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

History a mess

It's not a History of SS - reads more like a general overview of the country. I aim to edit and re-write at some point. WisDom-UK (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Megangr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Sudan/Archive_2&oldid=1177725426"