Talk:Sudan

Music sampler

There was a "music sampler" - the relevant article was redirected here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MyRedDice (talk • contribs) on 26 April 2003

Map

There is a good map in the de-Wikipedia waiting :-) 82.83.18.196 21:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

to be checked

this edit [1] reads

there is one more tribe which is not mentioned and it [Jorshul]which resides in Bahr Al Gazal region.

In the Politics section there was random text thrown in, and I have edited it out. However I think a modifying phrase or set of words may be missing from the desription of the regional governors of the country. The possibly missing words are indicated by a series of dashes. --Smithgrrl 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article on Acholi language is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you can contribute or want it to be improved, you can vote for this article there.--Fenice 16:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Should this article really use the term "Negroid"? I was understanding that that term is inappropriate in all contexts. This word is found in the part "Early history of Sudan".

The article should not use the term "Nigga" in the section "1.2 Christian Kingdoms". Unless I am mistaken, that word is a racial slur, and not used professionally. Acceptable would be Negro or Black African. I'm no expert in anthropology however.

I am doing a report on Sudan. I can't find anything on Sudan child education anywere. Can someone help me out? Thanks.

Sudan under Egypt

the following line to precede the paragraph dealing with the rising of the Mahdi.

In 1820, Sudan came under Egyptian rule when Mehemet Ali, the Ottoman viceroy of Egypt sent armies under his son Ismail Pasha and Mahommed Bey to conquer eastern Sudan.

--Doldrums 10:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

time question

hey guys i am doing a report on sudan and i was reading time zones and i got stuck. what does UTC mean? can you help me?thx.

UTC is is an acronym for Coordinated Universal Time, which roughly approximates the old Greenwich Mean Time that was given up in 1972. - BanyanTree 00:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"War has Ended?"

Ah.... under the Darfur Civil War, it says the Janjaweed Militias have disbanded and the war is over.

No, its not, there are still militias and still a lot of killing. Who wrote this?

Modern History and governments

I tried to correct parts of the page, but so many facts were incorrect. In particular, the paragraph "From 1983 to 1997, the country was divided into five regions in the north and three in the south, each headed by a military governor. After the April 6, 1985 military coup, regional assemblies were suspended. The RCC was abolished in 1996, and the ruling National Islamic Front changed its name to the National Congress Party" does not reconcile with the fact that the government was democratic in 1986-1989, which is explained clearly in History of Sudan, see the part about Sadiq al Mahdi. --Karouri 16:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Under History the following sentence reads:

Three ancient tom is the maddest kunt in the world. I have tried to go in and edit this but do not see it listed and therfore believe this text is somehow imbedded or hidden. Can some one please take this out. Let's not be adolescent school kids. If you are not serious about history, or learning, stay out of Wikipedia!! --Brucejr 12:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also under history is written: "On September 9, 2004 the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell termed the Darfur conflict as a "genocide," because he is an ignorant imperailist pig, acknowledging it as one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century." Italics are my own. KlaftenZhaange 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden

I don't understand how Osama Bin Laden is considerded part of the history of Sudan? "In 1991 Osama Bin Laden and the al-queda network moved to Sudan. His money, power and construction work projects assisted the president. In 1996 however, he was forcebly expelled and relocated to afghanistan.".

I concur, this a very western perception of what is relevant, perhaps this would be better suited to a subsection on Terrorism in the foreign relations section. Also valuable to include would be their alleged involvement in the assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on June 25, 1995 and the bombing of the US embassy. --TuesdayMush 15:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

current events

Hello!? THere's absolutely NOTHING in here about the genocide occuring in Darfur! This article needs attention...unfortnately I don't have the time to fix it now, but I'm hoping someone will. I added a link to darfur conflict.

I agree with the above comment. This really needs to be remedied.

What is the timezone? UTC +2 or +3? The page of Sudan says +2, while the page of Timezone says +3?

i also agree im doing a report on sudan and i cant get and info what so ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.218.156 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Timezone

What is the timezone? UTC +2 or +3? The page of Sudan says +2, while the page of Timezone says +3?

UTC +3 (Source: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

Brent Woods 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights

The whole Human rights section is pretty biased. While the Sudanese government does violate various human rights, it is not agreed that they commit genocide and were not found as such by the UN. Torture of priests, concentration camps, etc is wildly beyond imagination, and definitely not happening. It is impossible for the Janjaweed to participate in killing 1.5 million Christians since 1984, as Darfur is a totally Muslim region, even more so than north Sudan.

The paragraph is not verified as well. Not a single citation exists. --Karouri 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire paragraph seems incredibly biased--no sources cited, either. The UN accelerated the civil war for oil interests? Can this even be proven and even if it can does isn't this paragraph supposed to be on the Sudan's human rights record instead of the influence of other countries in its oil interests? Even if there is a link, it's not spelled out here.

71.196.157.136 06:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I took out the UN stuff because it's both inflamatory and I can't find anything to prove it and replaced it with a couple cursory paragraphs based upon HRW and Amnesty Int'l articles. I didn't touch the last paragraph because I didn't have time to look into it. PLEASE expand this, people.

User:35.638.562.302 March 19, 2007 yeah your paragraph didnt make sense. it sounds like your saying that Muslims wouldnt kill 2 million Christians. that's not true, their whole belief system is based upon their distruction. i dont have any sources to site... but i couldnt just read that and walk away knowing that you were wrong.. ----

Kinda sad not to mention that US Chevron Oil Company accelerated the war to slaughter and get rid of the people so that they could get their hands on the oil. Nowadays, when US have kinda bad reputation, the oilwells have been sold to Chineese and Malaysian oilcompanies. Worth mention is that the companies doesnt hand out the 2% profit that was supposed to develop the area surrounding the oilwells.

HI Karouri

THERE is an agenda to divide Sudan…The Agenda of breaking up Sudan.. started since British were ruling Sudan.. Christians Evangelists from British and Americans want Sudan to break up

Historically, the north of Sudan had closer ties with Egypt and was predominantly “Arab be Muslims or Christians while the south was predominantly black, with a mixture of Christianity and Animism.

These divisions had been further emphasized by the British policy of ruling the North and South under separate administrations. From 1924, it was illegal for people living above the 10th parallel to go further south and for people below the 8th parallel to go further north

The law was ostensibly Preventing South and North Sudanes people to be enacted ..is to prevent the spread of malaria and other tropical diseases that had ravaged British troops (as british claimed), BUT also to facilitate spreading Christianity among the predominantly animist population [while stopping the Arabic and Islamic influence from advancing south]

British/Christians Evangelists MADE that Division to break up SUDAN ..please ..read … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan

To say that Only Christians were Victims of that war (which had tails with the Colonial legacy and still been fed by western nations) is an UNJUST Biased Opinion. Notice also that If Christians minorities in south were killed by Muslims, they would not live and take refuge in Predominantly Muslim populated Khartoum

81.153.68.219 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See - North-South and slavery lower in the discussion thread. The seperation of North and South was not merely a residue of colonial policy - although it was encouraged by the anglo-egyptian administration - but a longer trend in the relationship between North and South. And I imagine people were fleeing to Khartoum because they had no money, no livelihoods, and were caught in a violent conflict with both Southern militias attacking each other and Government-supported baqqara and other Northern tribes/militias raiding into the South.

-R2

Shigia

Article needs sources. Kappa 01:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The portion about Darfur Conflict

The portion about the Darfur conflict in the bottom seems opiniated... And not so well organized ... Can we discuss that?

indeed we can - what would you like to discuss? Danlibbo 07:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Darfur section stated that the Darfurians are mostly Christian or Animist. This is incorrect; the Darfurians are predominantly Muslim.

Also, it would bring value to the text to ad that the Sahara dessert is spreading to the south. This forces people from the north to move south and consequently causes conflicts with the population already living there.

Coat of Arms

Why is the picture of the coat of arms really bad? It seems to be fine when viewed by itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kadoda (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

arab

When Arab is used,are there any semitic arabs as well in the Sudan?

If they speak Arabic, then of course...--71.235.94.254 04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Utterly non-neutral

The sections on the histories of the first and second civil wars are completely subjective and seriously lacking in referencing. For example in the first civil war the government was NOT pushing a Salafist agenda, it was pushing a fairly secular (though still highly ethnocentric) policy based on North Sudanese identity. The language in which the whole section is written is amazingly unencylopedic. I am not going to edit or delete anything because I am not a doctrinaire and I am no expert on the subject (although I do know some about it). I am just drawing your attention to the serious problems with this section. It needs a complete rewrite and more vigorous sources. When you write something on Wikipedia, please try to be mature, neutral, and encyclopedic regardless of your ideology. --Karkaron 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging "Languages of Sudan"?

Strong no. Not sure who suggested it or the rationale. In general I would argue for more development of "Languages of ..." articles for African countries, giving an overview of what languages are spoken, history, language policy, language and economy, issues with cross-border languages and so on. It's good there is a stub for Sudan. Talk about how to develop it, not delete it. --A12n 12:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Languages of Sudan is a bit of stub right now, but there is more than enough to talk about to occupy a complete article. Geoff NoNick 14:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sudan is not an arab country

Who ever wrote in the first paragraph that Sudan is the largest 'arab' country by area is a fool.. Arabanized Africans indeed control a lot of the country, but it is in no way an arab country, it's an African country and always has been..Taharqa 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All countries in Africa are African and always have been. I do mean black too. However, if Sudan is in a thing called an Arab League, then they recognize them as an arab (whatever that is) country. It was an early memeber.--71.235.94.254 04:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Arab and African are not mutually exclusive terms. Africa is a continent, whereas "Arab" ca refer to a hell of a lot of things. Funkynusayri 19:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of the term African Taharqa?

Sudan as well as Libya and Egypt are Africans because they are located in Africa same way as China is Asian because it is Located in Asia Not Europe

Do You deny Egypt Libya and Algeria to be African Nations and all have proven continuous history of at least 60000 years old of civilizations, just because They are Not Black?

Africans are diverse in Genetics (Do Not Share the Same Hapologroup DNA to be from common descent), Diverse in languages (NO Common single dominant Language), Diverse in Religion, and do Not have Common single dominant culture and history to be one People or one Race of common descent !

If You Consider yourself as an African , because of your "Blackness". Then many Black Africans (let alone other Africans Barber Tawariq, Libyans, Amazeq..etc) Do NOT THINK your "Blackness" is enough Because, You do Not share with them Religion Language or even how Dark your Colour is. In another word they do NOT see you as an African. So what makes you African or more African than them or more than Arab, Anglo-saxon, Ashkinazi, Han, Homosapien or Even a missing link ape and you are all living in Africa? Is it Just BY BEING BLACK??????

86.151.154.61 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Demography

Are Sudans arabs like the arabs we see from Jordan and syria, etc. or are they black arabs like somalians? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Abuse with flag? 86.87.65.51 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Somalians are not Arabs since they do not share in Arab culture or speak the language. Sudanese Arabs are actually a mix of Kushite people from the south and regular Arabs. There is a noticeable difference between the two but to the untrained eye it is pretty easy to mix them up. We have a saying in Sudan, "We are the best Arabs because we have African blood but we are the worst Africans because we have Arab blood" I think that saying sums up the sudanese dilemma, torn between two worlds not considered africans nor arabs.

Most of the world seems to consider you African. The funny thing is, they don't seem to point out white arabs as not being true arabs. I guess they don't want to tell white people how those white arabs got there and became arabs(whatever that is).--71.235.94.254 04:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse language and culture with genetics. Saying that someone is an Arab usually means that they (or their family or community) speak Arabic and view the culture associated with the Arabic language as their own, in some sense. Arabs are very diverse in their (biological) genetics. There are black Arabs, pale-skinned Arabs, blond and red-headed Arabs. There are black African people who are Arab in their language and culture and those who are not. (And it goes without saying that most Muslims are not Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslim.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.217.85 (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC) BetacommandBot 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Historically, the Arabs were not even pale skinned. You can see that in some of the tribes in Saudi Arabia and Yemen today. People in the East Mediterranean probably acquired that skin colour through intermarriage with other races in the area as well as other Mediterranean countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.185.213 (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

'Foundation Utilizing Care for Khartoum'

"The United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) was established under UN Security Council Resolution 1590 of March 24, 2005. Its mandate is to support implementation of the Foundation Utilizing Care for Khartoum (FUCK), and to perform functions relating to humanitarian assistance, and protection and promotion of human rights."

Surely this is just someone being immature? I can't find any evidence of a 'Foundation Utilizing Care for Khartoum', or its dubious acronym. Just wanted to double check before deleting though...

Plagiarism?

There is a paragraph in the Geography section that is taken word for word from the source listed at the end of the paragraph (citation #29). I'm not sure but I think that's against the rules. Even if it's not, somebody ought to change it to match the style of the rest of the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeoo (talk • contribs) 07:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

North-South relations and slavery

There is not one word in this entire article about slavery, and very little about North-South relations outside the sparse mentions in the section about the Civil Wars. It is my understanding (from books like Jok Madut Jok: War and Slavery in the Sudan, 2001 and Francis M. Deng 1995: War of Visions) that the division between north and south had its roots as much, if not more in Northern slave-taking raids and expeditions into the south during and before the Mahdiyya, then in colonial policy during the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium. Slavery dwindled during colonial rule and the early years of independence, but came back in a big way during the Second Civil War. I'm not editing this myself right now because I'm a complete n00b at wikipedia and don't know how to use it elegantly, and just saw that there was a serious shortcoming here. -R2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.134.97.139 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While there are some faults in your point, the general point is largely correct. The Mahdiyya was a short period, but most of the damage probably took place during the Turkish-Egyptian occupation (what is billed in the page as Union with Egypt!). Slavery was probably even part of the reason in the first place. People in the South tend to lump the Egyptian, Turkish and Northern Sudanese as one group as they are linked by Islam. It didn't help that after some time, Northern Sudanese found it profitable to participate in the business, with some establishing big armies for it. But is was more or less a governmental time for a long period in the Turkish-Egyptian rule. On the other hand, 'came back in a big way' is simply wrong. For example, you would have a lot more asylum cases accepted for such a reason if it were true. With all of the media furore, very few cases of asylum if any have been accepted by Western governments due to slavery. For example, Mende Nazer's case was rejected by the British before being accepted on different grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.185.213 (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal system?

There don't seem to be any notes on their legal system - what it is, how it operates, possible penalties, common charges, etc. Even a note on what their system of law is based on, and a link to a more detailed article would be nice. (For example, here's a section on law in Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Law - it's a bit stub-ish; but at least it gives a general direction for further research)129.97.250.138 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Law in Northern Sudan is based on Shari'a, unless things have changed very recently. They also one of the few Islamic countries to enforce the hudud, which means severe corporeal punishment for five different sins (stealing, adultery I think, can't remember the other ones).

Southern Sudan is an autonomous area, with a different legal code. Unfortunately, I know very little about it.

-R2

Teddy bear controversy

You can't possibly tell me this one little bizarre news story is important enough to put in the main article for "Sudan". Let's migrate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.4.104 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's absurb to include it in this article. There's already a page dealing with the most famous teddy bear in the world so I propose removal of the section altogether. If an event like the US bombing of the "Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory" isn't significant enough to mention in this article then surely the teddy bear controversy doesn't qualify by any stretch of the imagination. Sean.hoyland 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's ongoing and its historical & political significance is too early to judge. If it's not here, more vandals will simply insert anti-Islamic nonsense. I suggest it's left to find its own level, then decisions can be taken as to whether it's worth keeping. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - its long-term effect is too early to tell. However, it is much more than "one little bizarre news story". It has caused world-wide controversy, stained UK-Sudan relations and caused widespread questioning of issues such as to the extent that religions should take offence over perceived slights to their prophets/symbols. It is rarely right to make early judgements as to whether a current event is transitory or deserving of a long-term record. We should revisit in a few months when we can take a more detached perspective. BlueValour 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If an identical section was added to the Islam page or the United Kingdom page would your position be the same ? Would that be reasonable ? I don't think so. Anyway, I'm happy to watch the article evolve with interest. Sean.hoyland 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

<---outdent for new discussion
I see this has been replaced, but in the meantime, there is a separate article, which is linked. Is there really any merit having detail beyond the link here? Those of us who watch for vandalism here now have two articles to watch which I think we could do without! --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment this is of topical importance - I think that we should let things settle down for a short while before deciding on the future of this section. BlueValour (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

While I think a "see also" should be more than enough, I have moved the section from "History" to "Human Rights". It is certainly an event that is too minor to be in any history books, but can perhaps be used as a not-very-important example of the current situation of freedom of speech. Kusma (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I am not convinced it's a "freedom of speech" issue as such (whose freedom?), it seems to me that putting this here in juxtaposition to much more pernicious abuses might been seen as trivialising those issues. I'd propose that now the dust has largely settled, the incident deserves its own article (which it has), with nothing but a link from here. After all, Sudan has a history running into thousands of years, and this incident is just a pinprick in that fabric. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the section. If somebody wants to put it back in, they should find a better section than "History" or "Human rights". Kusma (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

This page needs some pictures. Take a look at other countries pages, they are full of nice pictures? why there are none here. plz add some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halmalik (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The Coat of Arms looks funky on Firefox 3 Beta 2! What's up with that? It needs a change... -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Version converted to PNG uploaded to commons. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Land of the blackend

is a more accurate translation of bilad-al sudan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.3.192 (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a friend who has done missions work in Sudan. I asked him about the derivation of the country's name he claims this is an open question. While the referenced derivation is one option, it is also possible that the swampland in souther Sudan named Sudd is a possible root for the country's name.DannyJohansson (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious edits

Are these edits correct, or are they vandalism? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Border with Egypt

Whey does Sudan's border with Egypt have bends in it rather than being straight?

Tabletop (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Swahili

Many people in the south do not speak Arabic, only Swahili. This was one of the resons for the conflict between the north and south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.75.253 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? You mind giving a source on that? As far as I know, the major languages spoken in the South are local, "tribal" languages, like Dinka and Nuer (which are almost identical), Shilluk, Luo, etc... English has some status there as a contact language, and is growing in importance now that Arabic (for obvious reasons) is becoming less desirable as a lingua franca. That said, I am absolutely convinced that swahili, whatever tenuos position it may have in the South, had nothing to do with the onset of the Civil Wars. Although admittedly the role of Arabic as part of the "one nation, one religion, one language" agenda did have its role in the tensions that led to war.

-R2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.161.226 (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but my source is really uncitable because I was told it firsthand by a Sudanese who fled the country. He said almost no one in the South spoke any Arabic or English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.75.253 (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Swahili is spoken only as a lingua franca by those who lived in Congo, or East Africa, mainly Uganda or Kenya, as refugees. It is a second lingua franca hardly ever heard off the main roads or north of Juba. The first lingua franca, of course is the Southern form of Arabic usually known as Juba Arabic, which is almost exclusively a spoken language but is understood by everyone. This languaged morphed in Kinubi in East Africa when it was taken there by the soldiers of Emin pasha, who eventually, many of them, became soldiers in the King's African rifles in British colonial days. (personally I feel a person who said that Swahili is spoken in S Sudan could not have lived there very much, he probably had to flee as a child)

relationship with China and Russia

I removed a statement under the Culture section in the main article that dealt with nuclear relations between Sudan and (China and Russia). Given current political situations, it might be wise to be on the look out for more inappropriate messages of this type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.97.133 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

6th fastest growing economy?

Have tagged a sentence bang in the beginning of the first para that claims that Sudan is "still managing to be the sixth fastest growing economy in the world -GDP". Does somebody have a ref for this? Sounds dubious. Prashanthns (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The CIA World Fact Book lists it as 16th as of 2007, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html. The rank figure is not very meaningful. It is a rapidly growing economy, largely due (I suspect) to the increasing oil production. Fitzaubrey (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Can we just change that to "..is a growing economy owing to the oil production."? Prashanthns (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Prashanthns (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Damnit

Whoever you are, stop adding English as an official language. It is not an official language. And perhaps you'd be willing to register an account so I could chat it over with you, but I suspect you'd rather just keep on editing via IP. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure whom the IP person is, but I just added it a couple minutes ago after I read, further down in the article, that "according to the 2005 Constitution, Arabic and English are both official languages." What's more, the French, German and Spanish versions of this article also state that English is an official language. Funnyhat (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Politics section

There is currently a very strange text in the Section Politics on the Sudan main page. It reads: "In December 1999, a power struggle climaxed between President bin Laden and then-speaker of parliament Oghod Aasheet Madrars Al-detaaime, who was the NIF founder and an Islamic ideologue." Obviously, there never was a president of Sudan called Bin Laden, as Omar Bashir took power in 1989 and keeps it until today. And the famous founder of the NIF and big allied and later rival of Bashir is Hassan Turabi, I don't know if there is also a certain al-Detaaime, it could be, but the section should be reviewed by somebody who knows the subject; also the reference to the Twin Tower attack and the transferring of (whom exactly?) to Afghanistan etc. is very strangely worded and not at all logical. Thank you 80.103.32.127 (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sudanese writers, artists and singers

Current section includes two links and the item "Good GOdddddddd." Does the latter belong?

Mikedelong (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

English is an official language of the whole of Sudan; that has never changed. However, in my recollection, in the North Arabic is also called the national language.

Barry Sesnan

Hydrology and History

The hydrology section could perhaps mention that one of the main reasons for its low wealth is the need of water for irrigation of crops and to sustain life in the surroundings.

As such, it should be mentioned that the incompletion of the Jonglei diversion canal has contributed to not being able to move forward. And perhaps a suggestion on the connecting of the 2 Wadi's in Darfur (near Malha; notably Wadi Howar and Wadi El Milk could increase economic prosperity and decrease of desertification. This would have much more effect than what the humanitarian organisations are doing.

The egyptians could help in the financial continuation of the projects as they reduce nile evaporation (good for them too).

Also, there together with digging wells and a connection channel east of Malha, heavy population control should be placed, to prevent the population of growing even further.

The history section needs to be moved to seperate page and small section should come in its place.

81.245.188.240 (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)