Talk:Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Africa article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
align="left" This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)
Article Creation and Improvement Drive Africa was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week spanning from Sunday, 23 July 2006.

For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history.
Africa is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B Africa has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3
This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
To-do list: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

This is an "of concern" list to give some hints on what might help. Feel free to add, comment or alter this list. Strike out items that are done to keep track of the progress.

  • References: need to be comprehensive
  • Please expand the lead to comply with WP:LEAD
  • Demographics section: no other continent page gives attention to skin color for its own sake. Possible subtle racism and may just need to be removed. Note that the Talk page contains some valuable comments on this issue already. UPDATE: Section severely cut down and renamed following the movement for the short segment on religion to the appropriate section. Also added comment on significance of skin color. Still an unusual amount of discussion about race for a continent article.
  • History section: this section is pitifully short for the continent that's considered the cradle of civilization. Also, almost nothing is mentioned about the civilizations that called Africa home before the rise of colonialism. There is a separate History of Africa article, but the main article could use at least a little more detail. The fact that the real discussion of Africa's history begins with colonialism (again, utterly neglecting the peoples that had lived there for thousands of years before)seems awfully eurocentric.* Geography section: should discuss such topics as climate, soils, and drainage. An accurate count of countries is needed; already stated numbers vary radically. Should mention major geographic features (sahara desert, great rift valley, mountain ranges)
  • Economic (updating figures and own templates)
    • Articles are unattended and fragmented, consider expanding and re-writing?
  • Flora and fauna: Not discussed in the current article.
  • Culture section: the listed items should be worked into prose and missing sections expanded
  • Religion: basically non-existent and badly in need of help
Basic outline done. Needs both historical and regional specifics.
  • Languages: needs to be fleshed out enough to give a brief overview of the large main article.
    • Examples of well known languages per family
    • Source various estimates of total number of languages in Africa
    • Endangered languages
    • Language politics
    • Afrikaans (Indo-European), Malagasy (Austronesian)
    • Contact phenomena (pidgins & creoles)
  • Politics: fragmented and needs attention
  • External links: need pruning.
  • please pay attention to the offensiveness of 'pigmy' this is not a proper when referencing these people

Last update: Ryan Delaney talk 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Priority 1 (top)

Contents

[edit] Colonialism

The section on Colonialism is very inadequate. No sources are cited. I recommend that the following be added:

To speak of the "scramble for Africa" is to begin a debate centuries old. In the words of Robert Collins, "The explanations [for the colonization of Africa] are nearly as unsatisfactory as they are numerous. The misconceptions are as enduring as they are erroneous. To scholar and student alike, the search for understanding this dynamic period, which resulted in European colonial rule in Africa and dramatically altered the future of a vast continent, is the Problem of the Partition of Africa."[1]

By 1870, many European nations were interested in the African interior, and began moving up the rivers. Generally, except for a few cases, foreign powers could not move beyond "small coastal enclaves."[2] But from the years of 1880-1900, the European imperial powers engaged in a major territorial scramble and occupied most of the continent, creating many colonial nation states, and leaving only two independent nations: Liberia, an independent state partly settled by African Americans; and Orthodox Christian Ethiopia (known to Europeans as "Abyssinia"). Colonial rule by Europeans would continue until after the conclusion of World War II, when all colonial states gradually obtained formal independence.

The scramble came from the rising of a new world from old Europe. Until this point, Britain had been the undisputed leader in the industrial realm. They could produce more manufactured goods than any other country, and at the lowest price. Britain promoted the idea of "free trade" in Africa, the idea that no European countries would interfere with one another while freely trading in Africa. Britain had no worries until the 1860's when "France, Germany, and the United States had caught up with Britain in terms of industrial technology and manufacturing."[3]

As a result of this industrialization of the world, there was a shortage of markets to sell to. many European countries, as a result, looked to Africa as a potential client. Some believed when diamonds were discovered in 1869 they "provided the incentive and capital for a large influx of Europeans."[4] The creation of the Suez Canal "not only made the East African coast more accessible but also became the great pivot in British imperial strategy."[5] Above all else, we must look at this imperial world pragmatically and not ideologically. Until this point, "military and political relations between Africans and Europeans concludes that Africans controlled the nature of their interactions with Europe. Europeans did not possess the military power to force Africans in any type of trade in which their leaders did not wish to engage."[6]

But a new world, as noted above, had begun. Because of new competition in the trading industries of Europe and the Americas, Britain now had rivals for trade in Africa. Even smaller countries sometimes wanted to get involved looking for quick cash and to find ways to sustain their countries. Within the hubris of the European nations was the ideal of "national prestige," an idea that holding African colonies would increase the power of a nation.[7] New technology as well in the form of the "repeater rifle" and the "maxim-gun" gave Europeans new advantages over Africa. There had been trade of guns with Africa before this era, but as Hilaire Belloc put it:

Whatever happens we have got

The Maxim gun; and they have not.[8]

But the main question that we must decide is how the partition of Africa began. What was the primary catalyst for "the scramble?" Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher argue that the British occupation of Egypt began the process.[9] Robinson and Gallagher refer to an old "gentlemens agreement," cited above as Britain's policy of "free trade," that essentially all the European powers would stay out of each others way. When the British invaded Egypt the broke this agreement, and "France came out in open oppostion to the new regime in Egypt toward the end of 1882."[10]

Others trace the origins back to the French, who made plans to crate a railway from Dakar to their holdings in Senegal. The British responded to these French claims by recognizing Portugal, and their claims to parts of Angola and the Congo. With a series of complicated alliances being created, France and Germany looked to one another to stand against the British. Germany, not wanting to be left out, laid claims to Togo, Kamerun, and South West Africa.[11]

"The main question that we must decide" ??? What kind of writing is this? Sounds like something from the 1911 Encyclopedia, writing in the "royal we" no less... I think the whole section needs some work and may be better suited to a subarticle, since we don't want half of this article to be a discussion on things like the Maxim gun. This is supposed to be a generalized and brief discussion of Africa concentrating on the highlights of African civilization, not devoted to the political manouvering by European powers. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, colonialism did have a lot to do with Europe. Europe was the ones doing the colonizing. But you are correct, I do believe this should be a sub article. The current section, however, is highly unsatisfactory with NO CITATIONS. Let us take an example:

Colonialism had a destabilizing effect on a number of ethnic groups that is still being felt in African politics.

This sweeping statement needs evidence, or it should be taken out. There are little or no specific examples in the text. Where there are specific examples, there is no primary source evidence.Coldfire136 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length

The page is now 57 kb, and I think it should be about half that. Should we move the table or shorten something else? Maurreen 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should systematically make sure that each section with a referral to a daughter article is no longer than two paragraphs. -Fsotrain09 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've cut down the Geography section using this rule, but the history section is way too big! --Thelb4 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Being bold, I've cut out all the subsections to the History section, and the page is 8 kilobytes smaller! --Thelb4 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's now at 44 kb. Any other section merges, and/or trimming to daughter articles? -Fsotrain09 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Colbert Report

First of all, I'd like to thank Mister Stephen Colbert for including Wikipedia on his most recent July 31, 2006 episode of his hit TV news show, the Colbert Report. However, he also mentioned its downsides - such as its editability and suceptability to malicious vandalism.

Oh yes, and did I mention - he reccomended that every single memeber of the audience log on to Wikipedia and edit the Africa article to say the elephant popu;ation had tripled.

Probably something to look out for.

--Phantom.exe 03:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I'd just like to thank the administrators for such a speedy response to The Colbert Report's good-humoured promotion/vandalism, or as some call it, vandotionalism.

He actually mentioned no good side of wikipedia. The Colbert Report is a parody, and Stephen Colbert plays a character on the show. The real Stephen Colbert obviously thinks that Wikipedia is a horrible webiste because his character, who is the opposite of him thinks it's a great website. 75.3.60.48 04:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah-- the Colbert folks are geeks. They love it as much as we do, and they give us lots of great publicity. --Alecmconroy 05:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a little uncertain whether he really likes it or not. But he did make a bitter observation that a lot of facts that make it into the finished article are based upon everyone else saying it's right.--69.4.152.79 06:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert isn't a geek. He is very intelligent. He would not enjoy a website like wikipedia. 75.3.60.48 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Mr. Colbert takes much joy in Wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there. The important thing is that we do our best to keep the information on this site as accurate as possible.

I suggest that the page go back to semi-protection for a while, since it seems evident these elephant vandals have not had enough of their childishness! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Be Done

I don't know why they chose an article for the Article Improvement Drive that can't be edited by unregistered users.....stupid vandals. ;(. Anyway, these are some things which registered users can do to improve the article:

  • Geography: ".....one of the three great southward projections....." I don't know why, but that just doesn't sound good. It sounds like it was written from the point of view of someone who lives in the Northern Hemisphere, and Wikipedia is a worldwide institution.
  • History: This has been mentioned before, but Africa HAD A HISTORY BEFORE COLONIALISM!!!!! What about Ancient Egypt? What about the Zulu Nation, and the other alliances which formed as a result of it? I mean, come on, if Africa is the place where human civilization began, then why does its history only start in the 1400's with European exploration? And there's no mention of slavery, even though the article is eurocentric. If they removed the vandalism protection thing, then I could do a lot of this stuff.
  • Modern History: There are vague references to civil war and corruption, but there needs to be specific examples, like Rwanda and, more recently, the Sudan. And the apartheid, which is vital but is not included.
  • Culture: A pitifully small section for a continent with so many cultures. Mention the main ones and some of their features. Also, the last paragraph is on music, which should be included in the music section.
  • Demographics: Still too much emphasis on skin color. It's really not all that important. Take it out. Entirely.
  • Language: The language map says that Afrikaans is the main language of South Africa, and Xhosa is the main language of the area northeast of it. In fact, Zulu is more widely spoken than Afrikaans in South Africa, and Xhosa is largely present in this country as well. You can see that just by reading the "South Africa" article right here on Wikipedia. There are probably other errors, too, that I didn't recognize. Africa has about a hundred languages -- do you really want to put only fifteen or so on the map?

Give me some feedback on these suggestions, adding and subtracting as needed. --Ellie

The article was chosen for WP:AID before it was semiprotected.
It would be good to have more discussion of the desired length. In a section above, I suggested shortening the article and asked about how it might best be done. No one objected; one person appeared to give at least implict support. But yestereday I was reverted twice within 10 minutes.
I was mainly trimming, but I also added some material, which was thrown out with the bathwater. Maurreen 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm making my support explicit here, especially if most of the trimmed material can be moved to the daughter articles. You declared your concerns/intentions here before making the edits, so I don't believe reverting was called for. -Fsotrain09 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate that. Maurreen 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm making my opposition explicit here. The items contained in each section were what the longstanding editors here felt was appropriate for inclusion. THere should be a discussion for consensus before removing ny one of those items. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What exactly are you saying? You did not object when the issue was raised.
Without going into a lot of detail that might not be productive, I wonder if it's worthwhile for this to be the AID article. Maurreen 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ellie. A lot has to be done on this article. It is very unsatisfactory in it's present form. But maybe initially this should only be a portal linking to other articles. When the more specific articles have ripened into good articles, one can try to summarize them to give some flesh to the Africa article. I suggest we start with the more specific articles. For example, I am currently working on the African Music and African Dance articles and I am planning some even more specific things like e.g. an article about Amadinda music from Uganda. Only after the main articles have become really good can the Africa article become really good. It is far too early to try to bring this article to featured article status. Nannus 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't think you can edit that page anymore! which is good.

[edit] Latitude and longitude

I'm 25 miles from the nearest really big library, so do Africa by Evans Lewin and Merriam Webster's Geographical Dictionary really state those longitudes and latitudes, or just the approximate measurements across the continent? I looked at satellite images at http://www.Terraserver.com and I get 37°21' N, 34°50'0" S, 17°31'46" W and 51°24'55" E. I confirmed this on Google Maps - I couldn't get Google Maps to register latitude and longitude directly, but if you zoom in on something and it doesn't move then you're in the right place. So if we correct the latitude and longitudes, do we keep the references, or am I missing something? Art LaPella 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very good article

I'd just like to say that this is a very good article and has restored my faith in the wikipedia editing system. I've not looked at the vandals comments incase that faith is removed.

[edit] Changed Africa political picture placement

I changed the placement of the africa political map so that it was closer to the heading "geography" to me it made the most sense because otherwise you would have to search for the tiny thumbnail picture of the map in the bottom. If anyone has any objections to this I would not mind hearing them.i think this paragrach is very hard to read. u should make bigger print.:(

I have no objections it makes perfect sense. 86.138.21.180 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)computers (like mine:)). Maybe we should go through them and see if we have any unnecessaries, repeats, or inaccurate maps (see my comment from a few weeks ago on the Languages map.)Ellie041505 13:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)(:

[edit] White?

I'm sorry but I don't like the idea that a "White labour force" is one of the reasons that South Africa is so advanced. I am pretty sure that there are blacks that are just as educated as white people, thus i am changing part of a sentence to make it sound less offensive. Stevo D 01:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Remember tho that the white workforce is still the most skilled part of the SA workforce, as a result of deliberate discrimination through law and education during the Apartheid years. This will no doubt not be true in the future as the effects of Apartheid are rolled back.

Or, more realistically, "South Africa" will slide into third-world anarchy and chaos, as "deliberate discrimination" is "rolled back". I love the way people on this site spout the Marxist propaganda, without having any idea what the truth of the matter is.

So your saying that the Apartheid was not 'deliberate discrimination'?

[edit] colonialism

"Due largely to the effects of colonialism, corrupt governments and despotism, Africa is the world's poorest inhabited continent."

Please remove "colonialism" from this sentence. China,India,and Latin America have have been subjected to colonialism, but thier growth "has lifted millions beyond subsistence living", but colonialism is viewed as negative in Africa? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.21.183.131 (talk • contribs) 9 September 2006.

China, India and Latin America are not the subject. That statement is true and should NOT be changed. Even though Africa is considered the poorest does not mean that China, India and Latin America do no have high poverty rates. They in fact still do struggle with poverty even though it is improving. Just because you do not like the truth does not mean it should not be mentioned. Yes, Europeans and their brainchild colonialism have screwed up the world due to greed and a blatant disregard for human life. FACT! [Nita, 12:24am November 11, 2006]

Actually some of the largest economies in the world are former colonies. Africa is poor despite colonialism not because of it. --Jayson Virissimo 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the colonialism sentence. I think it is clear that colonialism in general does not cause poverty and unless someone adds a reason why colonialism in this case caused poverty it should not be added back into the article. --Jayson Virissimo 04:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, how about forced labor, upheaval of native power structures, repression of native beliefs and religions, and exploiation of natural resources for the benefit of the colonizer with little or no investment in the colony? That's just to name a few. Colonialism was no picnic. It was a massively harmful enterprise in much of Africa. — Brian (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You make good points. Yes colonialism can be very harmful, but it by itself is not a direct cause of poverty. United States, Ireland and Hong Kong were all colonies and yet they are not in poverty. In many cases colonialism brings with it new technology, better education, and bureaucracy. If you would like to add specific instances of colonialism in Africa causing poverty then go ahead and add them, but colonialism in general does not result in poverty. --Jayson Virissimo 22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Colonialism gave backwards 3rd world countries a chance to catch up with the rest of the world. Whether that chance is utilized (as was the case in Asia), or not (as is the case in Africa), is up to the natives, and their brain capacity...

[edit] Somethings I can't delete.

There is vandalism in the history section but when I go to edit It's not there. Zazaban 18:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any. Perhaps it's not there because you confused it with more Stephen Colbert elephant vandalism I just deleted, which was just BEFORE the history section. Art LaPella 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there was "line removed as length was moving page margins" and it wasn't there when i tried to edit it. Zazaban 00:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Found it in history. [1] [2] [3] A bot deleted it a minute after it happened, too quickly for you to edit it first. Art LaPella 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 53 or 54?

193.252.13.109 changed "53 independent countries" to "54 independent countries". That seems to contradict the country list at Africa#Territories and regions. I assume entries in that list like "Mayotte (France)" aren't independent. Excluding all such countries whose name includes another country's name after them, I count 17 independent countries in East Africa, 9 in Middle Africa, 6 in North Africa, 5 in South Africa, and 16 in West Africa, for a total of 53. Art LaPella 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably someone advocating for Somaililand recognition. Zazaban 01:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Either way, the count should match the list. Art LaPella 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 53: this also seems to have been a topic of prior discussion at the Geography of Africa article. Cogito ergo sumo 02:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no further comments, I'm changing back to 53. If anyone prefers 54, please change the country list to match the count. Art LaPella 23:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Fulfilled

There has been a request expand the lead to comply with WP:LEAD on the to do list. Action has been taken by me and now Africa has new content in the beginning paragraphs. Please discuss and edit as necessary. Neutralaccounting 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] africa wins again

Hope i wasnt too bold in adding Africa wins again to the See Also list. This was because it was without any pages linking to it and I am dealing with them at present. Remove if you will, but remember, so far this page is its only link. Fuzzibloke 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality problem

I feel that there is a neutrality problem in the history section of this article. The first paragraph seems to be evolutionist. I, a Creationist, take this offensively. The paragraph talks about how "man evolved here". Creationists believe that humans were first in Asia (where we think the Garden of Eden is), and evolutionists belive that humans were first in Africa. This paragraph specifically says that man was first on Africa. Please, somebody rewrite this paragraph. Thank you. --SilverBulletx3talkcontributions 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists and historians accept the Out of Africa hypothesis. Until this changes, wikipedia doesn't need to make room for diverging fringe theories. Should we also include the Hindu belief that humans have existed for thousands of billions of years? This is all covered in the neutrality section that you linked to. Ashmoo 03:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

This section seems a little unwieldy and in need of a cleanup.

I suggest deleting the stricken through links for the reason given next to each one and slimming down the links identified in red by choosing the best one or two - I've noted which I think should stay and why. The idea is to develop a shorter list of good links that readers can rely on, rather than a directory of links that are of low quality or duplicate content. Let me know if this looks good.

Photos and Information
  • Africa Photos Photos from Africa such as Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa There are lots of African photos, but they're mixed up with European ones and there are no comments inicating which are which.
  • L'Afrique Hundreds of photographs of Rwanda, Ethiopia, Senegal, and Burundi. Also articles in French and English. A mainly french language site. Per the external link guidelines we should be linking to English sites unless there is good reason to include a non-English site. Might be a good article for the French Wikipedia Africa article though.
  • ASAP Africa Photo Galleries and Information about African Community Development This isn't a photo gallery site, it's a website for a US-based charity/nonprofit who work on African projects. They're not the biggest or most well known charity working in Africa and the info on the site isn't particularly broad. I guess I'm saying, great as they may be they don't really seem to warrant a link on this article.
  • Jungle Photos Jungle Photos Africa provides images and information on various countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
  • Afrika.no News
  • African Safari News Seems to be a blog from a safari travel company.
  • Inter Press Service-Africa This link is dead. Should be replaced by Inter Press Service-Africa
  • Africa Encyclopedia Article from 1920s
Directories
Politics
  • Africa Action Africa Action is the oldest organization in the United States working on African affairs. It is a national organization that works for political, economic and social justice in Africa.
  • African Anarchism: The History of a Movement Is this a significant point of view? Anarchism in Africa isn't mentioned in the article at all. I'd like to strike both this, the Irish anarchist, and the Working class history below from the point of view of relevence and not being reliable sources. But if it is a significant point of view, we should represent it, and I suggest keeping the working class history link and losing this and the Irish anarchist.
  • An Irish anarchist in Africa, western Africa from anarchist perspective. As mentioned in the link above - this seems like over representation. I suggest striking it regardless of what happens to the other Anarchism related links because political commentary from an unknown, self-described anarchist is of limited encyclopedic value.
  • Commission for Africa
  • African Unification Front
  • Working class history in Africa-- people's and grassroots histories I'm a little torn on this. It seems to be a part of the anarchism links above. It wouldn't reach reliable source standards, but it seems to have content that isn't covered elsewhere. I'm currently thinking keep it, and sttrike the other two above.
Culture
Sports

If I don't get any comments I'll go ahead with these changes tomorrow. But if there's discussion, obviously I'll hold off until we can build a consenus. --Siobhan Hansa 13:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead with the changes. One difference - I realized the replacement link I proposed (Inter Press Service-Africa for the dead link Inter Press Service-Africa) was not actually an appropriate replacement. If anyone can find where the page moved to that would be great. I had another look around but didn't find it. --Siobhan Hansa 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC vs. BCE

I recently added a good deal of info to the history section. When supplying dates I used BCE rather than BC, shortly thereafter another individual came through and changed them all to BC. I'm curious as to whether there is a standardized practice for this. The use of BCE has become dominant in academic fields over the last couple of decades and now is by far more common in any academic texts, while BC is still common among more public texts. However, given the association of BC to Christianithy it seems to have at least some minor POV issues (though very small, I admit), which is why BCE was adopted by academics in the first place. I'd like a consensus as to which is more appropriate; I prefer BCE but if the majority of people don't I'm fine with that. --The Way 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. you must be new here... There is no single thing that has been more disputed on wikipedia, to the tune of hundreds of Megabytes and scores of talk page archives. THe people who claim like you do that BCE is "dominant" are a slight minority, while the other 55-60% in every poll ever taken here claim that this is PC nonsense being pushed by a vocal minority. The only compromise that has been adopted across the board is that both are officially acceptable, but articles that are written in one style should be consistent and not be changed to the other, or vice versa. (Unless there is no objection to do so on a specific article). This article was already a BC article, so under the terms of the "ceasefire" (about a year and ahalf ago this was proking massive edit wars all over the place that we don't want to flare up again) this is a "BC article" and will remain so unless everyone should agree to change it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to editing history articles. I'm fine with whatever decision there has been, but BCE is common in academic texts; if you pick up a modern history, anthropology or archaeology text or journal it's quite likely to be used in it. Don't want to re-ignite an old argument, though, so I'll stick with what has previously been decided. --The Way 22:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Manual of Style section on this issue Art LaPella 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding a citation disagreement with Codex

I want to question Codex's edit to the sentence about the Sahara undergoing increased desertification circa 4000 BCE and get some consensus. It's a small edit, so I don't want to make a big deal about it and I really don't want to be nuisance, but I'm not understanding how this 'violated NPOV.' Saying that the Sahara region began to dry up is no different from articles saying that the So and So River changed course or agriculture began to take place at a particular time in history. It's just as valid as any other historical view regarding a particular change in climate and I don't see how this, more than anything else in any history section, pushes a certain POV (especially with a view that is so widely held in anthropology, history and geography: one can find numberous sources regarding this; in fact that statement was already there when I started editing last night, I just added a citation because I had a source that discussed it, with a minor change in date [4500 BCE to 4000 BCE]). The idea of an in-text citation, which is also there, is so that one can cite without 'dirtying' the article with stating what source makes this claim and this statement already has a citation, it doesn't need a second one written in prose. This statement is no more POV than any other single premise in any historical article on Wikipedia including this one, yet we don't require more than an in-text citation for these other premises. If you still have a problem with it, could we say something along the lines of "It is believed that the Sahara began to dry and undergo an increased speek of desertification in 4000 BCE?" I'd just like to know what the reason is for asserting that this one sentence is more POV than any others in the history section, thus necessitating the inclusion of "According to the Oxford Atlas of World History..." (As a note, this particular historical atlas is pretty much the best in the field) --The Way 22:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason my edit was NPOV is because, if you're going to cite a source that authoritatively states that such and such happened in the year 4000 BC - a year for which there are absolutely no records whatsoever - without even offering the slightest explanation of how they came about this knowledge, or at least presumed to - then it's far better not to make a bald statement of fact that such and such happened in the year 4000 BC, but rather state that "according to source xyz, such and such happened in the year 4000 BC". I don't care how good you think the source is. Many people do not simply accept everything they are told to, without being told any reason why. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. --Guinnog 04:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete history of Africa

There is no mention of the Arab slave trade in East Africa which is estimated to have enslaved as many black Africans as the slave trade in Western Africa. No mention whatsoever of the Islamic Jihad that swept over Africa, and the hardships suffered by the indigenous Africans. Over one thousand years of brutal history are missing from this article; it is as if it never happened.DearGod 05:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I can't believe how large of an oversight this is. These things are VERY important in understanding African history. --Jayson Virissimo 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology contradiction

It seems that there is a contradiction between this article's etymology section and Africa's wiktionary entry. This article claims that the name came from a Proto-Kordofanian language, and the Wiktionary entry claims that it came from the Latin word Africa (which in turn derives from a Carthagenian word). Which one is true? Neither claim seems to have a reference. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 14:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh, never seen that new template before, let alone in reference to another wiki project. I don't think it looks good at all. Is it new? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The Kordofanian stuff was added only recently by an anon, which is why I added the unreferenced section tag myself. It should probably be removed, along with both tags, IMO. The part below about the Afri is more in synch with wikt, but perhaps an exchange of information between the two articles is in order. Some references couldn't hurt either. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wictionary isn't a particularly good reference to compare this article with. I agree with Codex. I'll remove both tags and comment out the disputed section until or unless someone comes up with a referenc. Fair? --Guinnog 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "twin tragedies of slavery and colonization of Africa"

Does this line seem a bit POV? Clearly slavery was not good but the line seems to opinionated to me 172.159.26.106 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This line is very fair sir!--Darrendeng 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with the first comment: this is not an encyclopedic tone. It's a much more literary sound, which is jarring in this context. Sure, slavery and colonization were both tragedies; it wouldn't be outside the bounds of encyclopedic tone to call them that. But the particular phrasing is...well, too "novel" or nuanced. The same would be true if I described a peanut butter and jelly sandwich as "Twin slices of bread slathered with creamy peanut butter and shimmering jelly." It's just not the literary style in which encyclopedias are written. --GenkiNeko 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Vandalism, strange format

It was in the entymology section. What was wierd is that it showed up in the article, but when you went to edit it out, it wasn't in the "edit" section. I'm not sure how the person did it, but copying the original text into wordpad, then copying it back into the wiki editor seems to resolve the issue quite nicely.

[edit] Vandalism

Sorry I had to delete the "etymology" section, I wanted to remove the vandalism and the vandal used methods that hid it from the "edit" page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.106.168 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

What vandalism? In future, if it's hidden so well that only you can see it, then you don't have to delete it... Thanks... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it was hidden on the "edit this page" page. It was clearly visible on the article. (see header directly above).

An image vandal has been hitting a LOT of templates recently, formatting the images to float in thousands of articles at a time, and causing a lot of confusion among users who can't find its origin. If you see an image pop up but it doesn't seem to be originating in the article, check template recent changes. Once you find the origin of the vandalism, revert, ask for the offending image to be placed on MediaWiki:Bad image list and request that the template be protected. Admins, it's probably worth being proactive and implementing an appropriate level of protection on high-use templates in the articles you watch. For an example of how to use template documentation subpages and the {{protected template}} tag, see {{expert}}. - BanyanTree 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


There seems to be more vandalism in the 'History of' section. Example: "absolutely no records" when referring to a period in prehistory is biased -- although I must say I have never heard that everybody lived in the Sahara.... Speciate 01:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)speciate

There is no vandalism... I wrote that because when making such an extravagant claim as that, it needs to be balanced by pointing out that this is someone's pure conjecture. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Then is the main wikipedia article on Africa the place for wild speculation on early human prehistory? Maybe it should be placed in a different page? Speciate 01:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)speciate

[edit] Culture Section

I am appalled at the state of this section. And in such a major article, too. I'd change it, but frankly, my knowledge of African culture is limited to intro-level courses. I am suspicious of claims that it's a fairly homogenous culture; my impression was that African geography has produced far more local variance than in Europe. But maybe that's changed in recent years. Anyway, this is a call for someone more knowledgeable to please fix this heavily POV and unencyclopedic section. --GenkiNeko 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I would place this article under the Africa \disambiguation page. True Africa is Carthage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.209.97.34 (talk • contribs).

I don't know what you mean but we already have Africa (disambiguation). Maybe what you are talking about is Africa Province and it is also included in the diasmbiguation page. So there's no need to update anything i believe. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite Clearly I did mean that referring to one "Africa" as being the definitive one, whilst placing others(including the real meaning) under the disambiguation page is prejudiced. True there is a disambiguation page for "Africa" but when one types "Africa" into the Go/Search box, one is directed to this page. This would seem to indicate that this page is the definitive "Africa", and only people who click on the "go to disambiguation" link will see the other uses. This is my problem. I suggest that when somebody enters "Africa" in wikipedia, there should be a single "disambiguation"-style page with links to all the different uses. By using this as the main "Africa" page, wikipedia is showing bias and a complete lack of neutrality. I said the same thing on the "Bad Attitude" page not 10 minutes ago(although maybe that is irrelevant to this discusiion?)...25 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.232.128.10 (talk • contribs).

I see what you mean and you are somehow right but this guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic is quite explicit when dealing with such situations. The continent Africa is the primary meaning for a term or phrase here. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Please someone edit this sentence in the Culture section: "This image of traditional African urban living is in deep contrast to European cities that were unclean, crowded and disorganised...characteristics that they have retained for the most part" Rachmaninov81 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Robert O. Collins, Historical Problems of Imperial Africa, (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1994), 7
  2. ^ Kevin Shillington, History of Africa: Revised Second Edition, (New York: Macmillian Publishers Limited, 2005), 301
  3. ^ Kevin Shillington, History of Africa: Revised Second Edition, (New York: Macmillian Publishers Limited, 2005), 301
  4. ^ <ref>Robert O. Collins, ''Historical Problems of Imperial Africa,'' (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1994), 7</li> <li id="_note-4">'''[[#_ref-4|^]]''' ibid., 7</li> <li id="_note-5">'''[[#_ref-5|^]]''' John Thornton, ''Africa and Africans in the making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800, second edition'' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 7</li> <li id="_note-6">'''[[#_ref-6|^]]''' Kevin Shillington, History of Africa: Revised Second Edition, (New York: Macmillian Publishers Limited, 2005), 303</li> <li id="_note-7">'''[[#_ref-7|^]]''' Kevin Shillington, History of Africa: Revised Second Edition, (New York: Macmillian Publishers Limited, 2005), 301</li> <li id="_note-8">'''[[#_ref-8|^]]''' Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher with Denny Alice, ''Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism'' (London: Macmillian, 1961) 163, 166, 168-74.</li> <li id="_note-9">'''[[#_ref-9|^]]''' Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher with Denny Alice, ''Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism'' (London: Macmillian, 1961) 163, 166, 168-74.</li> <li id="_note-10">'''[[#_ref-10|^]]''' for more information see Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher with Denny Alice, ''Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism'' (London: Macmillian, 1961) 163, 166, 168-74 and Kevin Shillington, History of Africa: Revised Second Edition, (New York: Macmillian Publishers Limited, 2005), 304</li></ol></ref>

[edit] Congrats

"Shelley White (senior-English) said she does not typically use Wikipedia but used it at her teacher's request to find an overview of Africa for her Earth 105 class. "The professor said it was actually a good article. She wanted us to read it," she said." collegian.psu.edu/ at Penn State University WAS 4.250 08:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/f/r/Talk%7EAfrica_231e.html"