Talk:Africa

Template:WP1.0

Someone put a racial slur on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.89.156.233 (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No pictures of Indigenous Africans were posted

How could you write an article about Africa and not post pictures of native African peoples? This should have been done, so the reader could get a sense of what African people look like. Africans are diverse and while the native people are black and dark skinned, they have a wide variety of features. The below links are to Hello MAgazine, they ran a special article on indigenous African models. (I keep repeating indigenous because the very small minority of whites who live in African are NOT native to Africa (they either came with colonialism, or with tourism) and would fall under emigrants from Europe, USA, etc.

These are indigenous (native) African models from Ethiopia, Somalia, Nigeria, and Sudan. I have seen them all over European magazines. I think their pictures should be posted (if some one gains permission from Hello Magazine) on Wikipedia. I did not like it at all, that native African people (regardless of occupation--models, doctors, famous people, etc) were not shown in this article. Their pictures are very important! There was not even a picture of Nelson Mandela!

I hope someone fixes this article.

---

I can't see any indigenous Europeans in the Europe article. Aaker (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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."

By 1890, 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." 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."

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." 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." 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."

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. 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.

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. 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."

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.

"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)

"As a result of this industrialization of the world, there was a shortage of markets to sell to."

This part in totally inaccurate and make no economic sense at all. Why would Europeans go the the poorest part of the world in order to "sell their goods"? Mostly Europeans sold goods to each other and to North America. There was no shortage of market to sell nor would Africa be a good place to do so anyway. This Marxist economic theory is so outdated it is almost laughable. --Jayson Virissimo 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)fruca:

I would like to add: Why is the Arab Slave Trade and Arab colonialism left out of this history? Scholarship has established that between the seventh and twentieth centuries, the Arab slave trade claimed between 10 million and 18 million victims--all human beings taken forcibly from their homes and transported against their wills to distant countries where they were owned by masters who could do with them as they chose. Why is this all left out? Why also leave out the fact that for thousands of years prior to European contract, African tribes generally raided and enslaved their neighbors? To present slavery as if it is a uniquely European sin, and to present Africa solely as a victim in this regard, is to leave out all the important context and background. Criticalthinkerguy (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The issue Colbert, and many others have with Wiki is, content can be edited by just about anyone who can get beyond the first barrier, Edit. Factual content can become diluted after so many cycles of editing. While everyone who decides to contribute to the Wikipedia, not many contributors consider ethical issues of reporting.

Readers of this post actually go beyond the text, most readers of Wiki just read the facia and believe the brevity instead of the history of the composition.(tilde tilde tilde tildeJaxdave (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)JaxdaveJaxdave (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)tilde tilde tilde tilde)

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.

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)

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.

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)(:

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'?

Why, because only Marxists believe that black people can manage their own country, or because only Marxists believe that the apartheid was "deliberate discrimination"?

What I was saying was that South Africa was never a "black" country. The indigenous people were the Khoikhoi and the San(Capoids) who lived there for hundreds of thousand of years all alone. In the 15th century white Europeans arrived, and steadily built a civilization, dispossessing the native Khoisan. Only during the 18th and 19th centuries did the first blacks enter South Africa as settlers, invaders, and unwilling labourers. They outbred the indigenous Khoisan and the native whites to the point where the ruling white people who had built everything and anything resembling a civilisation or a modern state realised that they could lose their country to these non-indigenous people who rejected the very essence of that civilisation itself and refused to assimilate. So the official policy was apartness...apartheid. At the time everyone was happy with that, until millions more black people swet in, because their independent Black African states slid into Third World states in rapid succession. Meanwhile the local black population continued to have one of the highest birthrates in the world. The ANC, PAC, SACP etc were ALL funded by, and ruled from Soviet Moscow. The head of the ANC was never Tambo or Mandela, but rather East European Marxists. ALL weaponry, money, even idealogy came not from Soweto but Moscow. The obssessive terrorist war led to the end of white rule, and the rise of a FOREIGN-BORN black population who now represented the majority through relentless immigartion, murder, terrorism and an unnatural reproductive rate. At Mandela's inaugaration the Oppenheimers etc were there to let him know who was REALLY calling the shots. And since, "independecne" and black rulse, South africa has deteriorated at a shocking rate. South Africa now has the highest murder, rape, armed assault, car theft, and child abuse statistics in the world. The HIV-infection and illegal narcotics statistics are rapidly catching up. The economy is approximately 15 % what it was under "deliberate discrimination". There are massive blackouts every day, and the only people who are well off are the Marxist puppets who are the ANC, the druglords, and people who install security systems. That's part of what I meant.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.22 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

That is merely a feable, ill-informed attempt at Apartheid apologeticism by invoking the old, tired and inherently flawed lie of terra nullius. --Ezeu 10:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how the poster made any reference to terra nullius. What terra nullius was in the case of South Africa, was European settlers appropriating land from the indigenous Khoisan as the Khoisan were nomads with no fixed settlements. This was irrelevant to black people at the time however, as there were no blacks in South Africa at that point in history. Note also that since ANC rule the ANC have used the same principle of terra nullius to appropriate land from the indigenous Khoisan. Land that had been specifically granted to the indigenous Khoisan in perpetuam by the white apartheid government. So what exa ctly was the point of making reference to terra nullius? It should be restated that the only indigenous people in southern Africa are the Khoisan, who are neither black nor white. In those areas were blacks settled before whites there are no Khoisan remaining today as they were the victims of genocide and cannibalism by the black invaders. In those areas where whites ettled before blacks Khoisan still survive today. This is not to say that they were treated fairly or justly under white rule, far from it, but at least they weren't murdered to a man like they were in "Zimbabwe" or "Mozambique". The only surviving areas where Khoisan still remained in the 20th century were South Africa, Namibia, and "Botswana"(named after the non-indigenous black tswana people who only entered the land in the 19th century, then bred themselves u into a majority). Under these white-controlled lands, the indigenous culture of the Khoisan was encouraged and special reservations(yes I know)were set aside for these only truly South African people forever. When black people took power, these lands were claimed as the property of the "indigenous blacks"(which is an impossibility in South Africa), and the number of Khoisan people has declined steadily since then, as they are now a persecuted minority in their own land. The ANC, SWAPO etc refuse to even acknowledge that there such people as the Khoisan, as their very existence disproves the lie of "indigenous South African blacks", therbey eliminating the idea of it being "their land" as someone stated above. Thus there is in effect a steady genocide that the international community ignores(or is simply ignoarnt of) as these people are slowly killed off, their only crime being living in the lands that their ancestors have for hundreds of thousand of years before there were even such things as Tswana or Xhosa or Zulu people. Of course the international community comments only on how wonderful it is that the "indigenous blacks" have defeated the evil system of apartheid, and don't even acknowledge the very existnce of the only truly indigenous people of south Africa, or if they do, they label them "Bushmen" and "savages" and imagine they are either just another black tribe, or even worse, some sort of pre-Neanderthal hominid. When people speak out against the obvious pro-black racism of the ANC etec then THEY are the "Evil" and "feeble", "tired" and "inherentl flawed". But then I'm just a "racist" aren't I? Blacks have always lived in South Africa, and I'm pretty sure they built the Egyptian pyramids too. Yes , that last line wasn't meant to be serious.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.245.136.27 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Yet another feeble and flawed argument. But you do ask one good question, to which the answer is obvious. --Ezeu 15:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How interesting that you resort to the same stock responses, ie "feeble" and "flawed" without making any actual points yourself. All that one is able to imply from this is that you know absolutely nothing about the true situation, and merely parrot out certain things that I', pretty sure you probably learned in "Black History" class at some college in the U S of A. Have you ever been to South Africa? Not the tourist-friendly theme park-esque pre-approved tour bus ride, but the REAL South Africa? Have you ever lived in South Africa? Have you studied the TRUE history of SA? Have you spoken at length for countless hundreds, if not thousands, of hours with real South African people? Or is everything you "know" what you learned in some college or high school from some biased "history" or "social studies" class? The fact that you have resorted to the exact same response would seem to indicate that everthing you have "learned" has a deliberate political and social agenda. Thus your "knowledge" is essentially hollow. Had we both lived in the 16th century I'm pretty sure you'd be calling me "feeble" and "flawed" if I declared the Earth was round and the Earth revolved around the Sun, because you would have KNOWN that the Earth was a flat dish on the back of a giant turtle, and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Since you have both resorted to personal attacks(feeble, which I'm pretty sure is what your teacher/professor told you was the "correct" response to anyone challenging your spoonfed "knowledge"), and the unchanging repetitive, and unconstructive nature of these comments, that are coming not from you, but from a biased textbook, I see no further reason to continue this discussion, if discussion it be deemed. I shall not be returning to this "discussion" page, so when you invariably fall back upon calling me "feeble" and "flawed" I shall not be here to read it.....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.245.177.124 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Where I learned and where I have been or not been is none of your business. I refuse to go into an indepth discussion with you and will limit my replies to "feeble" and "flawed" (as that adequately summarises your arguments) because 1) this is not a forum for discussing these issues, and 2) you are clearly here to push your political POV and nothing else.--Ezeu 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All of Africa is black. I was told by my professor undergrad that he, a Black American, was taught that Blacks were never in South Africa so Whites deserved to take the land. You sound like you are in leauge with this old professor to justify the taking of a land and culture. NOt to be mean, but tell me, do you believe also in the Curse of Ham and that Egypt was White too? And those who believe this is false are crazy Afro-centrics?

How can you say that "All of Africa is black"?! What about Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Western Sahar, Morocco? Are they also black? And for the millionth time, the "terra nullius" "justification"(wwhich i don't agree with either) was used to "prove" that since the indigenous KHOISAN peoples were nomadic hunter-gatherers rather than settled agriculturalists, that then the white people "deserved" to claim the land. The same argument was used in North America to "claim" the land that the Native Americans(also nomads) had never "claimed". The central flaw with this argument is that Black people are also settlers/farmers/land claimants etc and thus had there been any black people in South Africa at that particular time they would already have claimed the land, making terra nullius null and void. The other main flaw with this "indigenous blacks" myth, is that if they were indigenous to South Africa they would not have been black, they would have looked Khoisan. You see, different racial characteristics are the result of different peoples evolving/adapting in different environments. People who have been "formed" in Southern ASfrica look Khoisan, not black. The "black look" is as a result of evolving and adpating to the Congolese environment. It's like saying there are "indigenous whites" in Australia. If they were "indigenous" they'd look like Aborigines. The other major stumbling point of your argument is language. The black langauges are closely related to, sometimes to the point of being virtually identical, with Central African Bantu languages. By contrast the REAL South African INDIGENOUS languages are the Khoikhoi and San family/families of languages. The two linguistic familes (Khoisan and Bantu) are unrelated, yet the Bantu of your so-called "indigenous South African blacks" is one and the same of the Bantu of the Congo/Zambia area. How can this be? Parallel linguistic evolution? No, it's the result of Central African types migrating comparatively very recently into another area(South Africa). I do not believe in any "curse of Ham". The Egyptians are not white, but they belong to the same Caucasoid racial group as do whites. Egyptians are the same race as Arabs, Berbers, Jews, Italians, Greeks, Assyrians, Indians(of Asia), Iberians etc. They have evolved/formed/adapted in and to the Mediterranean climate/environment, and so have typically Mediterranean characteristics. In the same way Scandinavians have adpated to the Scandinavian environment, and Central Africans have adapted to the Central African environment, and Southern Africans have adapted to the Southern African environment. It is not unusualy for migarating peoples to ultimately outnumber the indigenous stock. Today most North Americans are NOT descended or reelated to the Cherokee, Sioux, Apache etc. Today most inhabitants of Great Britian are NOT descended from the Brythons. In the same way a non-indigenous people now form the majority population(s) in South Africa. The actual indigenous people have a very distinctive look, language, and culture, and now are only a small minority in their own land. I do not support or justify racial bias, but what's the point in trying to rewrite the obvious to try and claim that black people have always been in South Africa, or that modern Egyptians can't be the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians because they are not black? What's the point of trying to use the terms "black" and "African" as synonyms when they very clearly do not have the same meaning? As for being "crazy" that's for you to decide. The bottom line is that in many regions of the world non-indigenous people form a majority. And at least 30% of Africans are not black. Egypt was never a "black civilization", indigenous South Africans were never black. None of this is racist. It's just plain fact. There is an enormous difference between the idiots who soupt "supremacist" nonsense, and just stating plain facts about historical peoples, and modern peoples origins.

Thank you for the very enlightening read. Ignore the misguided Swedish socialist, they are a dying breed in their own country, hopefully Muslims dominate Sweden so that country stops producing irrational and "flawed" apologists who spew their filth on Wikipedia. Koalorka (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Black != Niger-Congo. There are plenty of Black people in Africa who speak different language families: Afro-Asiatic, Khoisan, Nilo-Saharan, and various language isolates. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm. The Khoisan are not "black". They are a unique people who are only part of the same race as "black" people in that we are all members of the human race. Likewise "Afro-Asiatic" people include Arabs, Berbers, Egyptians, Syrians, Jews and others, and are not "black" either. There is also serious debate as to whether Ethiopians, Somalis, Eritreans are "black" in the sense that Nirger-Congo people are. Also, language means nothing as to race. Most "African-Americans" speak English, but are not Anglo-Saxon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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]

Africa was more socio-economically backward thatn Europe before colonisation. How would Europe have been able to colonise Africa were it not for the fact Africa was behind.

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. — Amcaja (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...

That (above) is one of the most racist things I've seen, and damages the already ridicolous idea that colonialism was a force for good. The original sentance is fine. Ill change it back if its been changed otherwise the article would have no credibility Immanuel goldstein 13:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Must make the difference between exploitation colonies (Brazil, Mexico, Jamaica and African colonies, for example) and immigration colonies (Canada and USA, for example). In Immigration colonies, immigrants from the metropolis were the majority of the population, received lands and subsidies to settle; and were treated in terms of education, health and infra-structure for living, the same way as people in the metropolis, sometimes even better as an encouragement to migrate. In exploitation colonies, the colonies were purely for money-making through exploitation of its resources using labour from slavery, by the time of independence all land and resources in these countries were controlled by a minority, very little infra-structure had been built and trade with other countries was very poor because it had been restricted by the colonizers. These totally different treatments explains different degrees of development between the two groups of countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.51.226 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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. [4] [5] [6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --SilverBulletx3_talk^{contributions} 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)

The point is that you can say that "the majority of scientist believe that mankind originated in Africa", which is a fact, rather than stating that the Out of Africa Theory is the only accepted fact, which it isn't. This isn't even really about creation vs. evolution here. There is a growing number of scientist that disapprove of the Out of Africa theory. Again, you don't have to go and add all the other theories, however, it is important for accuracy's sake that the Out of Africa Theory be called a theory and not a fact. It is, by all scientific standards, a hypothesis and the is no direct way of ever knowing for sure where humans originated. Yes, it may be the best guess, but it is still a guess. Yes, there may be evidence, to some degree, that support it, however all of the evidence is hotly disputed and may be fallible or compromised to some degree. Again, this is not a forum to discuss whether mankind originated in Africa or not, so I won't go into too much detail. All I request is that the article be changed so that it is truely unbiased. 67.170.180.215 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Ralis

Creationism is not science it is religion. The article must be scientific —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.51.226 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

• allAfrica.com current news, events and statistics
• BBC News In Depth - Africa 2005: Time for Change?
• Guardian Unlimited - Special Report: Hear Africa 05 Do we need two british perspectives of Africa in 20005? I suggest keeping the BBC one and losing the Guardian.
• Yale Economic Review Africa:Failed Economic History

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

• Africa's social networking site Requires registration
• Africa Homepage Just doesn't seem very good! The blog entries are sporadic and infrequent. The articles and news listings have undifferentiated advertizing links and it seems to be aggregating other feeds without any editorial control.
• African Community Portal again, not very good. The "feature articles" are a year or wo old and the forum has 12 posts!
• AfricaResource.com Africaresource.com is an educational portal that develops and distributes content. This is sponsored by a Binghampton University in the United States, I think it should be considered with the other US University sites. I'm suggesting striking it regardless of what happens to the other US university sites because it seems to have a heavy emphasis on African-American culture and concerns rather than on Africa.
• ClickAfrique - African Portal and Directory Doesn't seem to be that great. Heavy google ad presence, a forum with less than 50 posts, and their lead news item is Wesly Snipes.
• Columbia University - African Studies Another US university site. I'm torn about this link, the Stanford, Chicago and Pennsylvania ones, and the US library of congress reading room. They all seem like good resources for readers, but the inclusion of so many resources from the same basic perspective seems a bit like overkill. I suggest keeping Columbia, Stanford and the Library of Congress.
• Contemporary Africa Database
• Library of Congress - African & Middle Eastern Reading Room
• Open Directory Project - Africa directory category
• Stanford University - Africa South of the Sahara See the Columbia University comment above.
• The Index on Africa directory from The Norwegian Council for Africa
• University of Chicago - Joseph Regenstein Library: African Studies See the Columbia University comment above.
• University of Pennsylvania - African Studies Center See the Columbia University comment above.

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<;font color=red>, 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

• Traditional African Drumming Festivals and Ceremonies Seems too specific for an article on the entire African continent.

Sports

• Confederation of African Football; in English and French I would simply suggest striking this, but I fear backlash from soccer fans! However, we should link directly to the English language version. Suggest replacing with Confederation of African Football

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)

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)

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)

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)

I also agree. Scholars estimate that the Muslim slave trade, which began eight centuries before the European trade, took between 10 million and 18 million slaves from Africa. Why do some scholars seem to be protecting Muslims or Arabs from criticism on this front? And the imposition, by military force, of Islam over much of Africa is also left out, which is odd, given the criticism usually made of European imposition. If we are to be critical thinkers, and we are critical of slavery and domination, then we need to be critical of slavery and colonial domination whenever it occurs, even if the perpetrators are Muslims...Why single out only one group for criticism while protecting all others? This article in general lacks a critical fairness....Criticalthinkerguy (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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.

Vandalism & Protection from edits

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

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)

Disambiguation

I would place this article under the Africa \disambiguation page. True Africa is Carthage.— Preceding unsigned comment 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 — Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

Post-Colonial Africa/AIDS

Sentence claims that in the "last year" AIDS has been reduced 25%, maybe the author meant rate of transmission, but I can't find a reference even to that on the internet. So I will remove it. Tac2z 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes

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)

Homo Erectus

Homo Erectus is linking to the movie, Homo Erectus, not the humanoid Homo erectus. The "e" should be lower case 4-20-07 Cease — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.200.3 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Has been taken care of. --Ezeu 07:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Map of Africa

How about just a plain old map of Africa like one would find in an atlas? I was trying to look up some countries by looking at the article, but to no avail.

Dcarlson 03:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

commons:Maps of Africa --moyogo

The usage of maps follows a logic; especially those of continents. The first map is always a .png map so readers can have a broader picture where the continent is located (see articles about other continents). The maps that follow thru the article are specific and should represent its section subject (political map, geographical map, etc...) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Placing the cursor on Burkino Faso doesn't show the name of the country like the othersJørgen Mykland 12:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

ruf

RUf is a bad thing or group that is in Africa and there are blood diamonds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.216.25 (talk • contribs)

Revolutionary United Front. What's your point? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection tag

This article is currently fully protected, but it is incorrectly labeled with {{sprotected2}}. Could an admin please fix this, as it is somewhat misleading? Pyrospirit ^Shiny! 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully unprotected. --Ezeu 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I need help on certan facts on Zambabwe,Africa

Hello i would like some help finding facts on Zambabwes people, economy, and land PLEZZ! help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.124.133 (talk • contribs)

→ Category:Zimbabwe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Clickable map

I can't get Lesotho to work on the clickable map; it just gives me South Africa. (Same problem in both Mozilla and Internet Explorer.) — Alan^✉ 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Working now. — Alan^✉ 05:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't get Burkina Faso, neither Sao Tome and Principe Avililui 10:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Burkina Faso is broken on the clickable map. I don't know how to fix it myself. Freederick 10:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Fiwed now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bold text== Due to... reads correct == Hi, you who objected to the presented reasons for Africa rating at the bottom end of global economic indicators. This material reads correct. Provision of an adequate bibliography and references is a major ongoing wikipedia concern. Everyone is invited to contribute. And any basic familiarity with African history and circumstances leaves the reader aware of the correctness of the material you deleted and I put back in. A source needed tag is legit, as is the continuation of the statement.

I'll have another look at the bibliography and references for this article during some free time coming up in a week or so. Very best wishes.Gallador 11:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

...gangztah bhest gear...love all mah homies and true bitches...

Culture off topic

Hey sorry about this. I know you guys are super busy keeping this page up to the best standard and I don't want to come off critizing your work. Unfortunately, I was doing research for a project and needed info on the variouse African cultures. Sadly, when I went to read beneath the culture section, there was very little about the culture, and mostly just paragraph after aganozing paragraph about apratheid, which was limited to Southern Africa, and how the classifying of races by Europeans were wrong. I wuld say that information is very important to the site, however African culture is not the best place to put that. I won't change any of the article because I am not very well versed in ALL african cultures, and I know that most people will simply go in and delete my edit, so I won't even bother. However, if someone has the time, the resources, and possibly the knowledge, please add in more aout the variouse cultures such as the Zulu or the San. I'm only mentioning South African cultures because they are the only ones I am fimiliar with, however ALL cultures in Africa should be included. Thank you very much for all your cooperation.67.170.180.215 01:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Ralis

Thanks for your concern Ralis. I took your comment to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa as there are more people active in there. I hope that would help. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Page is semi-protected - How to cope if you are not a registered Wikipedian

The page is only semi-protected, which means if you create an account then after four days you can edit this page and any other semi-protected pages. Semi-protection helps cut down on vandalism, which seems to happen (unfortunately) a lot on this page if it's left open for anonymous edits. --Aude (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WORKAROUNDS: Obviously, free Wikipedia registration is the simplest way to allow an unregistered user to (after 4 days) contribute to this semi-protected page while still protecting the page from vandalism.

For the unregistered wishing to contribute faster, or anonymously, to a semi-protected page (or anyone wishing to contribute to a fully protected page), one quick though slightly clumsy workaround is to copy the portion that you want to contribute to and create a corresponding section on this page (the discussion page), paste your main article portion in the new section, and make your contributions there. Title your new and improved discussion section something like "Requests for edits to (main article section name)" If you leave your new section edited so that all an administrator has to do is to cut it and paste it in, your contribution may land in the main article before too long, or at least eventually, with a minimum of unnecessary labor, and thanks for your efforts, and to the administrators for theirs. If all else fails, after the article is unprotected (hopefully this will happen someday) you can paste your own edits back into the main article.

Using these workarounds, anonymous (i.e., unregistered) contributions to "Africa" may be slowed, necessary to impede vandalism (alas, poor Africa!) but not completely stopped. Obviously, registration is the preferred alternative.

PS -- This admin. response really fast! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.68.184 (talk • contribs)

You don't have to worry about our policy. I am leaving your trollish ways posted here as a proof of your racist agenda. Whatever is the case, you are not allowed to edit because of your indef block. Any other trollish comment would be deleted on the spot let alone your editing. This applies to all pages of Wikipedia you'd be editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"plenty of natural resources" — What about farm land?

I learned in an undergraduate anthropology class at UCLA "Africa's best farm land is like US's worst." The explanation was something like, sudden heavy rain washes away the soil and nutrients. David R. Ingham 03:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But "natural resources" are not limited to farming. Could you please explain further? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Africa has no history

Can someone briefly explain why peolpe think africa had no history and give examples to suggest that they was any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.5.130 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess all those books on African history simply have blank pages in them. Seriously, you are an idiot. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

request for correction

Requesting that someone change 'country' to 'continent' in the very first sentence of the article:

Africa is the world's second-largest and second most-populous country, after Asia.

71.131.183.49 06:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Sinai part of Africa ?

The Sinai articles doesn't say. The Eilat article says that Eilat is on the border of Asia and Africa. The Africa article is not entirely clear. The Southwest Asia article colors in Sinai as part of Southwest Asia but then somewhat contradictoray says Egypt is not a south-west-asian country. Some expert please clarify please. Eregli bob 09:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_spanning_more_than_one_continent#Africa Brianski 21:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

AFRICA CONSISTS OF 48 COUNTRIES NOT 46 IF ONE INCLUDES MADAGASCAR BUT NOT THE SMALLER ISLAND GROUPS AND ONE CONSIDERS WESTERN SAHARA AS PART OF MADAGASCAR. IF INDEPENDENT ISLAND GROUPS ARE INCLUDED THEN NUMBER INCREASES TO 53. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Bimbo (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That begs the question, "who considers Western Sahara a part of Madagascar?" Til Eulenspiegel 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Culture

Major issues with this section it sites no crediable sources for references as been already been tagged,it's author is perpetuateing myth set forth by afrocentist and afrocentrist alone,of one african race which is not true and has been disproven by dna testing and other sciences,not by the psuedosciences as the author says,there is not one race in africa just as there is not one race in asia,not only should,this is just a sad attempt to claim ancient egypt and the berbers for black sub sahran africans.this page should be disputed for the lack of neutrality.--Mikmik2953 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way here is the definition of caucasian from any dictionary

Caucasian

Main Entry: Cau·ca·sian Pronunciation: \kȯ-ˈkā-zhən, kä- also -ˈka-zhən\ Function: adjective Date: 1658 1 : of or relating to the Caucasus or its inhabitants 2 : of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features — Caucasian noun — Cau·ca·soid \ˈkȯ-kə-ˌsȯid\ adjective or noun --Mikmik2953 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Middle Africa?

I'm just wondering why the listing for what I've always thought of as "Central Africa". Is that because I've lived mainly in Francophone countries? Is it labeled that way to avoid confusion with The Central African Republic? I made this account to change it since it just seems so wrong to me.

Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla are not dependences

Is Alaska a dependence of USA? Is Kaliningrad a dependence of Russia? Is European Istanbul a dependence of Turkey? The Canary Islands and the cities of Ceuta and Melilla are a complete part of Spain, do not depend on Spain: THEY ARE SPAIN.

You should report before discriminating against these my compatriots. 88.3.18.126 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. It should be noted that there is a difference between geographical dependencies and political ones. In our case, we are refering to the geographical part of it. You can help make this clear at the article if you don't mind. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thrid world contry?

I know this isn't the place to ask question, but maybe someone can explain this to me. How can Africa be consider a thrid world contry when its a continent?--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Country list

How exactly are the 2 country lists on the infobox ordered? Did the English alphabet change? Did I miss anything? --ANONYMOUSPUSSY 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just came across an Article about Africa and I am terrified

The article starts with "Africa is the world's second-largest and second most-populous continent, after Asia. Africa is where those nasty mud people also called NIGGERS belong. At about 30,221,532 km² (11,668,545 sq mi) including adjacent islands, it covers 6% of the Earth's total surface area, and 20.4% of the total land area.[1] With more than 900 million people (as of 2005)[2] in 61 territories, it accounts for about 14%" - how it is possible that such a nonsese and offensive phrase is being published for such a long time? Is there any way I can report such racial attacs in more effective way than publishing another post in discussion?

sad ripper sadripper@gmail.com

83.20.105.111 (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)