Talk:Africa/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why is there a tag on Economy

There is a neutrality tag on the economy section. Why? There is no mention I can find in any of the talk page. Does it need ot be there? L.A.F.

The section could be seen as having an anti-globalisation slant. The comment about Botswana being the only country not to submit to the World Bank and IMF is simply farcical. Zimbabwe certainly isn't listening to them and Somalia and alike aren't in any position to.

The statements about foreign aid being focussed on cash crops and, in the next para, that income "goes right out again" are probably more poorly informed generalisations than biased. micronaut

Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki> Hi. I'm not a registered wikipedia user, so I wouldn't presume to change anything here myself but I've got some suggestions that might help to deal with this issue. I think that the main reason this article might appear biased is that it only deals with two issues: poverty, and Africa's relationship to the West (both in its imitation of western economic forms and in western aid to it). Though certainly, both of these elements are important, if Africa were truly as poor as it is said to be, there would be no one left alive. Famines in Africa are common, but they are by no means the status quo. In response, perhaps the section on economics should deal more with how Africans make ends meet in their daily lives. True, most African countries don't have stock exchanges or sophisicated fiscal policies, but economic activity does occur. For instance, household labor in Africa accounts for a large percentage of all work done, but is not generally included in GDP. Highlighting this discrepancy would go a long ways to explaining how people manage to reproduce in Africa creating growing familes without strong economies. More discussion on the nature of wage and migrant labor in Africa would also be a great boon to the page. In general, instead of speculating on highly political issues, such as the nature of corruption and foregin aid, a wikipedia page should deal with the concrete economic realites at play in Africa, and describe the lives of African people. Paul Zeleza's forthcoming "Economic History of Africa: Volume II" or the UNESCO History of Africa Volumes 7 and 8, might be useful My email is june16_1904 AT hotmail DOT com</nowiki></nowiki></nowiki>

June, I've changed your email address up just slightly so that it's human-readable but a machine probably won't notice it. Wikipedia is mirrored endlessly throughout the web, so the chances of unwanted spam can be pretty high for anyone who gives an email address in plain text. BrianSmithson 17:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Racists spinning this entry

It looks for the moment that the racists are determined to keep in the vile 'Race and physical appearance' (now named renamed 'Demographics') section with its racist terminology intact.

The Europe page will not have anything to do with this racist nonsense, instead, pointing all this discussion to other articles. See the discussion page there.

Distinguishing between people based on what they look like makes you a racist. Anyone that puts that 'Demographics' section back intact is just that. You cannot treat the discussion of Europe differently to the discussion of Africa just because the people in each region happen to look different to each other.

You said that "Distinguishing between people based on what they look like makes you a racist." Wrong. Very Wrong. That is an oversimplified attempt to stop ANY discussion of color in this area. If I ackowledge that FW de Klerk and Nelson Mandela difference's include the fact they are white and black, I'm a rascist? Please. Rascism would be distinguishing between people based on what they look like and then treating one worse based off of this difference. When it comes to Africa, the statement of color is fairly pertient to the issues. If we leave out the distiction between colors in the South Africa situation, it maybe hard to tell who was targeted by Apartheid, huh? The difference between a berber and a black african are significant enough to merit mention of a persons color, because that distinciton can help you define the differences in culture and lifestyle. Nonetheles, your original contention is foolish and lacks merit. L.A.F.

Either both the Europe article and the Africa article have 'race' sections in them or they both should not. What is most absurd and offensice is the current situation where one article is treated differently to the other; this is more wrong than if both articles had an erroneous/racist/fallacious section on 'race'.

Yawn. I live in a country on this continent where any mention of anything related to race or skin colour or any somesuch immediately gets you branded a racist. Playing the racism card is getting quite worn out by now. People are different, and not everyone around the world realises the extent of differences between people. If that section can shed some light on what the make-up of Africa is to someone living in China having no feeling for the rest of the world, it should be there — that's the point of an encyclopedia. Deal with the fact that we live in a rainbow world, and calling "orange" by any other name doesn't make it less orange.

Furthermore, I don't give a rat's ass what they do on the Europe page. We aren't in any way bound by what they decide there, and this page will grow through consensus from the editors here. That is the wiki way; take it in that spirit, or find another project to invest your time in. Dewet 21:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might not give a 'rats ass', but everyone in the world gave much more than a 'rats ass' about your country when it was being run by racists. It is very important that the two articles are consistent. There is no reason why both articles should not have a 'race' section, or both of them not. What is intolerable is one does and one does not, only (its seems) because Africans are 'brown' in the majority.

This is the issue here; if people are all the same then treat them the same. If the are different, then treat them as such, but be consistent about it, and certainly not flippant.

Actually, it is not at all important for the two articles to be consistent. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. siafu 22:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about describing physical characteristics and how they reflect the surrounding environment? Evolution or God making them that way doesn't have to be mentioned, but it's no coincidence that people whose ancestors lived in a hot place have darker skin than people with ancestors who lived in a cold place. Similar entries would be good for each continent. Merick June 29, 2005 20:52 (UTC)

I for one would like to see this information kept. However, there is a lot to say, and perhaps this is out of place on the Africa page. How do others feel about moving it to its own page, leaving only a couple of paragraphs on the main page? --Spudtater 13:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I second the idea of moving this racist section out of this article and into its own page. Wikipedia is dominated by racist american thought, and that is fine, as long as parts of articles like this are coralled off into their own space where they contaminate nothing. Perhaps the racist text describing the "different physical types" of European (that was deleted from the Europe page btw, presumably by a 'white' person who experienced a fundamental revulsion to being categorized like an animal) should be combined with this new page so that the article is comprehensive. Either way, while the Africa page retains this recist section, it discredits Wikipedia and demonstrates the racist and american bias that is the NPOV here.

"You might not give a 'rats ass', but everyone in the world gave much more than a 'rats ass' about your country when it was being run by racists."

Wow. The title tells it all.

I believe thorough reading will reveal the rats ass in question was concerning input on a project that doesn't have to follow another section's authority, not exactly warranting a political attack. I believe the list of nations who fall under the category "run by racists" would fill an extensive post all its own, including every nation on earth, past and present. "Ethnic cleansing" has been quite the worldwide event. The economics section clearly included info that puts the US in a bad light...the subsidizing cotton part looks like it's being done to keep africans down, not to help our farmers, so how can the section be viewed as having an "american bias?" Clearly, this is said to dissuade further discussion on the fact that calling orange another name does not make it less orange. There was no implication that there is something less desirable about being orange. That came from inside the reader. Where is the mention of the ban on DDT? Where are the political leanings of the post colonial governments who have stolen every dime of aid and caused the deaths of their own people by the millions? Come on, who's spinning who? L.A.F., Dewet, Merick, Spudtater, thank you for some common sense. Mr. No-name, racist and american bias... try formulating your own ideas for once....the old ones grow tiresome.[m5n]

Could this aspect of the article use a little more info on actual demographics, and a little less on race, a politically disputable topic? For instance: Size of Population, Population Density, Age Distribution, ethnicity etc. 128.118.113.145 17:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)june16_1904

Who is the original man? Where did he come from? Did all peoples stem from him?

"..decades of apartheid left both a legacy of social and racial division, but also a very large and highly skilled white population, and first world infrastructure in much of the country" I just wanted to comment that my English is very bad or this part is just bizarre, because I just read that the apartheid had the good part of leaving a "highly skilled white population" in South Africa. --201.24.233.42 04:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Just some guy passing by

How many countries?

Why does this page indicate that there are 54 countries in Africa instead of 55? http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Home_Page/Country.html lists 55.

I haven't done a side-by-side comparison, but my first guess is that U Penn is counting Western Sahara as an independent country, and we're not because of the dispute. - BanyanTree 14:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The UPenn list counts Reunion (a département of France) as an independent state, thus making the number 55. However, the number on the Wikipedia Africa page is now 53. I presume that excludes Western Sahara, although I don't necessarily agree with that decision. --Mikehillman 15:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Geography of Africa article says 56 countries... --TwilightBat 05:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Encarta says 53. Gflores ^Talk 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If one includes only territories recognised as independent nation-states/member states by the UN (which is just as good a standard here as any), there are 53 countries. If one includes all/other jurisdictions (as per the table, itself rather based on UN categorisations) – i.e., including Western Sahara (claimed by Morocco), French territories (Reunion and Mayotte), Spanish territories (Canary Islands, Ceuta/Melilla), and extraterritories (Madeira, Saint Helena) – there are 61 territories that comprise Africa. Whichever value is used, there should be consistency throughout. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For consistency, I've made editions to this article reflecting the above (and, similarly, to the mentions and area figures in the geography of Africa article). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the number of states in Africa, I feel UN categorization for the purpose of administration should be used as a basis. Instead, this countries should regionalized based on th regional associations they belong to in Africa.

65.93.218.87

I have neither the time nor will to vet the additions by 65.93.218.87, but a lot of them seem suspect, like removing syncreticism. --Golbez 01:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers and broadcasting in africa

A while back I created a resource for news sources which attempts to organise world news media in terms representative of population size (as opposed to number of news agencies or some other western bias). Although a fair amount of work has been done there is still much work to do. For instance we having practically no links to african broadcasting or newsprint sites. I would be very much obliged for any help filling in this gap. Barnaby dawson 12:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Countries by region

I've reshuffled the list of countries by region a bit. Specifically, I've moved Gabon and Equatorial Guinea to the Central Africa section, I've put Cameroon under Central Africa while leaving it's name under West Africa as well, and I've changed the notation after Sao Tome and Principe (forgive the lack of accents, as I'm not on my Mac) to say it's part of Central Africa.

Hopefully this isn't controversial. I've never heard Gabon and EG called parts of West Africa, and it's been my understanding that Cameroon has traditionally been the dividing line between the two regions (thus the dual designation). Sao Tome and Principe are well into the Central African region, too. Please let me know what you think. BrianSmithson 14:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I checked another encyclopedia and noted where they mentioned ambiguity as far as which countries belong to which region. The current list denotes this. There may be a prettier way to express this than what I did; if so, let's implement it. However, an anonymous user today reverted back to the list that existed before I started tinkering with it. I hope that anyone who disagrees with the way I organized things will bring it up here, since dogmatically declaring ambiguous countries to be one region at the exclusion of another violates NPOV . . . . BrianSmithson 04:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Look, the African countries designations are ridiculous. French speaking Central Africa includes the two Congos,the Central African Republic, Burundi and Rwanda, that is a specific region with their own issues familiar cultures and politics. East Africa is Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Mauritania may have an Arab-Berber majority but it is geographically located in West Africa. My family is from Zambia , it is clearly a southern African country, same with Angola. I can't think of all of them off the top of my head, but Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon,Chad ( How can a country bordering Libya, N.Africa be considered Central?) are all West African countries. There is nothing wrong with putting Indian Ocean in brackets of Seychelles, Comoros, Madagascar and whatever island off of East or Southern Africa I may be missing, people from East and Southern Africa don't identify with these nations ( because they just aren't thinking of them ), Indian Ocean islands is a good classification because they have similar demographics ( Arab, Indian, Malay-Indonesion or mixed populations ) and stand out being put into southern or east Africa (which is predominated by bantu Africans, some Nilotic groups in E.Africa), which I have never thought of them as. I'm still getting used to this thing and even though I know what Im talking about is subjective, in other articles, I wish there was some type of 'verification police' because anybody could write just anything. I'll have a look at the rest of the Africa article.

P.S I think there are more African territories/dependencies like Ascension, St.Helena, Azores etc. Afrika

Unfortunately, the question is not so cut and dried. Colonial powers may be one way to look at what is "Central" and what is "West", but then so is geography. Or fauna. Or politics. I was the one who reshuffled the current list, and I've tried to represent all ambiguity I could find. This is the only way I can think of to represent the issue without advocating one point of view over any other. For example, if Cameroon is West African as you say, then why is it the seat of the Bank of Central African States? And why is it on the Central African Franc? (Also: don't forget to sign your name after making comments -- you just type four ~ symbols in a row after your comments.) BrianSmithson 03:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I will continue to rearrange the countries into the regions I think. Casually, this is what's accepted with people from those regions but justification or not, I will do so simply because I want to... Afrika

P.S Couldn't even give me the Indian Ocean, huh? Afrika.....

We can always take this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. But continually reverting to your point of view, which goes against consensus (I'm not the only one reverting your edits) is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. By the way, try to place your Talk comments under the relevant section head. BrianSmithson 04:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The UN operates with its own set of rahter neutral divisions of the world into continents and regions that are not continent-biased but simply reflect cardinal points (see [1] for details). I cannot see how the British Indian Ocean Territory can be assigned to Africa, when geographically it is more closely associated with Asia. What are the criteria applied in this case? --Big Adamsky 20:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Imhotep, etc.

Ok, this deletion is what I call nonsense.

I removed the following section, which was added by an anonymous user. Until a source is added as well, it's pure nonsense. BrianSmithson 21:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

However, the worlds views of Africa have been skewn. Most don't accept the possibility that for one, Africans may have been (were) happy with how things were before industrialization. At some point in history, it is obvious that Africa was not "behind" and was quite superior, and although the race of the egyptians is disputed, the idea of the pyramid was concieved by that of an ethiop man by the name of Imhotep. No, not the mummy Imhotep... Imhotep was a medicine man, and documents have been found depicting his conceptualization of the pyramids, both on an astronomical, and corporal level."

You have never heard of Imhotep? I am not sure who wrote this, but it is well known, or should be well known about Imhotep's role in medicine and architecture. Did you bother to look up a source before calling it "nonsense?" Did you even type in Imothep in Wikipedia?

My goodness.

First, please be sure to sign your comments so that others will know with whom they are speaking. You type four ~ symbols in a row to do so.

Regarding Imhotep: Yes, I have heard of him. But the paragraph I deleted makes several dubious claims that need to be verified with a source. "Most don't accept the possibility that . . . Africans may have been (were) happy . . . before industrialization." Who says so? "At some point in history, it is obvious that Africa was not 'behind' and was quite superior . . . ." What was this point? ". . . the pyramid was concieved by an ethiop man by the name of Imhotem." How do we know he was "ethiop"? The part about the mummy is nonsense. BrianSmithson 11:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

African COTW

Please contribute. Revolución 03:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The African Collaboration of the Month has been discontinued . Every month a different Africa-related topic, stub or non-existent article was chosen. The aim of the collaboration was to improve articles to featured article status. Want to restart this collaboration? See the project page and collaborations page

Human Rights

I was quite surprised that there was virtually no mention of the extensive human rights abuses that are common in many African countries. While I agree that many parts of Africa seem to be moving in the right direction, the fact remains that there are still large regions (particularly in the Congo and in West Africa) that are practically lawless and prone to massive human rights violations, including cannibalism. I added a small paragraph to the politcs section regarding this, though I would suggest that human rights gets its own subsection with more details. Also, under the Politics section the subsection entitled "Modern Africa" seems superfluous, as the section before goes all the way to modern times. This should be changed. The Way 05:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The economy section

Could you please anon user/s explain to us here why the section is being blanked on a daily basis? Cheers -- Svest 21:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Afrikaans

Afrikaans is a West Germanic language, not a Bantu African language. It is derivative of Dutch with African loan words (Unsigned comment by User:161.57.100.3)