Talk:Southern Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the Africa-related regional notice board project, for collaborating on and improving Africa-related articles on Wikipedia. Please participate by improving this article, or visit the project page for details.

Southern Africa is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Would it be possible to find a population figure for Southern Africa? Think it would be relevant to this article. Thanks!

doesn't one write "persuit" pursuit? could someone change it please. thanks

Sure thing; however you can change things yourself: just use the "edit this page" button at the top of any page. --Dewet 04:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also seem to recall the term Southern Africa being used by PW Botha to refer to South Africa+the "independent" bantustans (and Namibia?). I could be mistaken. 168.209.98.35 08:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC

Is there a source for this? I've never heard it used in this way, and was around during the days of the Groot Krokodil. Greenman 18:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Madagascar? 2 Mauritius 3 Seychelles 4 Map unreadable

[edit] Madagascar?

Madagascar is highlighted in the map but not listed. Is it in Southern Africa or not? Scott Ritchie 03:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mauritius

I guess Mauritius is so Southern it needs to be listed twice. (Kidding) Mokeni

[edit] Seychelles

I do not seem to recall ever encountering Seychelles being referred to as a Southern African country. It is "out there" on its own but clearly easter African over southern.

[edit] Map unreadable

Perhaps there do exist people that can differentiate between three such shades of green, but I'm not one of them. One way or another including SADC in there is unjustified. We can a second map depicting regional organizations of the area, if you will. Aris Katsaris 16:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire; including notions regarding previous/related – and titular – political entities is wholly relevant. All are delineated through legends, captions, and accompanying text. Arguably, said articles are as much about geopolitical meanings/interpretations for the various regions, and major ones at that, as they are about merely geographical ones. Moreover, they add credence to what are variably vague terms. Thus, including the Southern African Development Community – a major African IGO – is justified.

Alternate maps – or use of different colours – are possible, but maybe you should have discussed changes and garnered feedback before asserting an equally arbitrary point of view about the content of this and related articles. I can be compelled otherwise; until then ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thus, including the Southern African Development Community – a major African IGO – is justified. What about the SACU, the Southern African Customs Union? Why not include that one? Either way the argument stinks. We don't include the Asian Cooperation Dialogue in maps defining Asia, and we don't include the European Unions in maps defining Europe, and we don't include the OAS in maps defining the Americas. We might include them in *separate* maps (in the same article) that are meant to show the prominent organizations of the region, but there's a quite clear distinction between the organizations located in a region and the region itself.Aris Katsaris 18:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I considered also doing that and perhaps I'll make a note of it: after all, it does fully coincide with the UN subregion; however, this would've been somewhat redundant on the map because of that. The SADC has a wider membership of countries that includes what some sources indicate as also being in southern Africa ... without having said articles degenerate into a free-for-all regarding which sub/region a territory belongs in.

Relatedly as for other topical treatments: we're discussing subregions here that are variably defined and perhaps unclear (e.g., glance at Central Asia, consult the CIA Factbook or any dictionary for varied definitions/indications of what territory is in what subregion), not continents or 'macro'regions that are more clearly cut – in cases of ambiguity, there are dedicated articles for such things. I'm all for alternate ways of rendering subregions but, frankly, your approach stinks – I'll comment hereafter when necessary. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)