Talk:East Africa/Archive 1

Archive 1

The map is a mess

If a map's supposed to depict definitions of East Africa (or of Central Africa or of Southern Africa), then we do NOT load it with additional information about international organizations or defunct states (in four different shades of green no less). That's just irrelevant.

What is the map supposed to be about? Is it about all the organizations that ever existed in the area AND about definitions of Eastern Africa? Should we include IGAD on this? If not, why not?

If you want a map about regional organizations in the area, then we should create a *second* map, not arbitrarily combine it with the map that's supposed to be about what "Eastern Africa" instead. Aris Katsaris 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire; including notions regarding previous/related – and titular – political entities is wholly relevant. All are delineated through legends, captions, and accompanying text. Arguably, said articles are as much about geopolitical meanings/interpretations for the various regions, and major ones at that, as they are about merely geographical ones. Moreover, they add credence to what are variably vague terms. For instance, a traditional definition for Eastern Africa includes only those three countries in the EAC; moreover, a user in the sxn above briefly commended this inclusion. IGAD, without notation of the directional term in the name, is an extraneous assumption.

Alternate maps – or use of different colours – are possible, but maybe you should have discussed changes and garnered feedback before asserting an equally arbitrary point of view about the content of this and related articles. I can be compelled otherwise; until then ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And your inclusion of the "Central African Federation" is justified how in a map supposedly about Eastern Africa? Aris Katsaris 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the constituent countries are commonly reckoned in both regions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems the argument for what is to be included and what is not becomes more and more convoluted. Perhaps the map instead of "LocationEasternAfrica.png" should have been named "Location_EasternAfrica_and_Relevantly_Named_Regional_Orgs_and_Local_Defunct_Federations_Named_in_Contrast_to_the_Above.png" Aris Katsaris 18:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And you would provide for neat-and-tidy definitions that vary? Predating related African edits by me, for instance glance at Central Asia. As above, I'm fine with creating added maps or enhancing the current ones ... but adjust your attitude: hyperbole is a non-starter and will be treated as such. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Anthony on this, for what it's worth. The map seems fine to me, and all regions/organisations included warrant inclusion, IMO. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For consistency's sake

If you are determined to include organizations such as the Eastern African Community, and former countries like the Central African Federation, then for consistency's sake, please also include a shading for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (aka COMESA) in there.

If you can.

Aris Katsaris 10:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And you were referring to my well-reasoned choices as being convoluted. Pot, meet kettle. This inclusion would serve little purpose and truly confuse, since numerous COMESA members are found in areas that are commonly reckoned in other areas of Africa and not co-terminous with Eastern Africa ... nor Southern Africa for that matter. Even a glance of the COMESA map clearly exhibits the spattering of members across the continent. I will add it to the "See also" section, however. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* I do not accept your choices as being "well-reasoned". I see them as utterly and irrationallu arbitrary. In the end you argued that these entities contained in their names cardinal directions and thus they should be included -- other organizations like IGAD didn't include them and therefore shouldn't. Now you are arguing that this is not enough and that we must instead evaluate the organizations membership.

Make up your bloody mind. With the ludicrousness of your arguments about inclusion or exclusion, Wikipedia can't even pretend at seriousness or professionalism. Will you include organizations based solely on their inclusion of the word "Eastern Africa" or will you bloody not? YES OR NO?? Aris Katsaris 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is now included ... in the "See also" section. Nor is it as clear-cut and binary as the options you would insinuate. I considered merely ignoring your post, my prerogative, since it is constructed to promulgate a point that isn't necessarily agreeable. I defer to my prior comments: I've made up my 'bloody' mind ... and I know that blusterous comments as above cannot nor shouldn't be taken seriously, nor will I hereafter. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You've been pretty much using your prerogative at ignoring me from the beginning, despite the pretense at dialogue. I've still not gotten a coherent *single* explanation why East African Community is included, Central African Federation is included (even here), the South African Development Community is included in the Southern Africa map, but IGAD and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa are not. Can you make one last attempt at a unified explanation rather than bring up a separate arbitrary reason for the inclusion of each of these? Humour me. Aris Katsaris 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not humour you or anything else. If you really think there's been pretense, despite rationale above (read: not arbitrary) and support prior, then you don't deserve any more elaboration than above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't seek "elaboration", you've elaborated pages already, much of it arguing about my attitude instead of about the topic. I seek a concise explanation instead. But whatever. I've let you do with the article as you please -- keep your map in the incoherent arbitrary unreadable form that it is for all I care. It still hurts my brain to look at it or contemplate the logic (and lack thereof) behind it, but I can avoid that by avoiding the entirety of the article. Aris Katsaris 07:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rightly so: if you cannot play nice, and you appear to have difficulty doing that, avoid the playground. I won't indulge your incivility. And perhaps it's better off that you avoid gibbering about topics that cause you pain. Apropos, I am ending this 'discussion'. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Play nice, the two of you. May I suggest medation? —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

South Africa is a country, the region is Southern Africa. Renaming this article to that of its current redirect page would create consistency among the designations for the regions of Africa: Southern Africa, Northern Africa, Eastern Africa, Western Africa, and Central Africa.

Withdrawn

The United Nations Office of the Special Advisor on Africa (OSAA) uses both forms.—Chidom ^talk  00:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The proposed name is not the common name and would be prescriptive rather than descriptive. --Yath 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yath. Dbinder (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nomenclature

The term for the region is "East Africa". "Eastern Africa" is everything East of a straight North-South line that divides the continent in half. Note that the handful of references to "eastern Africa" are biological, not intended to be precise along political boundaries. Stan 13:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The UN calls it Eastern Africa [1]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of East Africa

There's a lot that's wrong with the latest reversion. For starters, the proposed map of East Africa claims parts of Southern, Central and Northern Africa, causing overlap with countries already included in other Wiki pages. I understand that the list of countries was culled from the UN website, but it still contradicts the majority of other international organizations' and countries' definition of what constitutes East Africa.

Most agree that East Africa consists of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Some also include the Horn of Africa. Others add Sudan, Rwanda, and Burundi. Fewer still count Madagascar. And practically none consider Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, and all of the other little islands in the Indian Ocean as a part of East Africa.

The FAO -- a United Nations organization -- only counts Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, the Sudan, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania as comprising East Africa. Another UN organization, IRIN Africa, only includes Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Sudan. The Horn of Africa is classified separately.

This is why the map I reverted to is preferable to the other one you keep reverting to. It stands as a compromise between, on the one hand, the extreme position of lumping parts of Southern, Central and Northern Africa with East Africa despite the actual geographical locations of the countries in question, and on the other hand, restricting East Africa to just Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, which is also geographically unrealistic.

Moreover, the map you reverted to includes a link to the now-defunct Central African Federation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with East Africa. The color coded boxes also do not closely match the colors on the map itself and the striping is confusing, making the map difficult to read.

The body of the article also contains a few inaccuracies. For instance, it states matter-of-factly that "almost every country comprising the present day East African region became part of a European empire". This, however, is only partly true. Although Ethiopia indeed was never really colonized, neither was Somalia except for Italian Somaliland for about thirteen years during the Fascist era. The rest of the time, the region was a protectorate, not a colony.

The new map of British East Africa is also preferable to the one of Italian East Africa for the simple reason that it is period-specific and includes all the actual names of the territories then occupied by Britain. It shows the lakes, roads, towns, etc. in some detail, whereas the map you reverted to is a recent creation and was not drawn from an old, period-faithful book. It's also completely devoid of detail (no lakes, roads, towns, etc.).

Finally, the "See Also" section in your reverted version includes links to Wiki topics (e.g. History of West Africa, North African Campaign timeline, László Almásy, etc.) and to fringe ideological movements (Panafricanism?) that bear little to no relation to East Africa, yet relevant links such as the Axumite Empire and the Land of Punt are curiously absent. 65.92.176.35 (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First, that is part of the point: through your edit, you insinuate a definition of East Africa that isn't sourced or whose prevalence hasn't been established. It is ironic you removed the two sourced definitions from the introduction when placing your own text. Second, the UN certainly does not lump in Central (or Middle) Africa with Eastern Africa -- see UN geoscheme. Third, the link to the CAF is relevant, since some areas of what may be reckoned in Eastern Africa were part of it and provides contrast. Lastly, the long-standing map is a conciliation which accounts for any number of definitions of East(ern) Africa better than the simplistic map you favour. Feel free to restore the map of British East Africa or to nix notions regarding European colonialism below, but notions upfront -- including the map and 1st section -- shall remain. 69.158.152.173 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I did supply sources for my definition of East Africa. I supplied two direct links to the FAO and IRIN Africa United Nations organizations which directly contradict your one UN source.

Furthermore, the majority of official definitions of what constitutes East Africa do not encompass anywhere near the number of countries you cite. You yourself even reverted to a dictionary definition from the New Oxford Dictionary of English which restricted East Africa to just Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda i.e. the traditional colonial definition of East Africa. The rest was known as the Horn of Africa, and Mozambique et al. never figured into the picture at all. Your other source citing the Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary here also does not include Mozambique et al. Only your one UN source does which, again, is directly contradicted by my two UN sources.

Here's a recap of why the map I reverted to is much preferable to the one you reverted to:

1)It does not conflict with other Wiki pages that already include the areas of North, Central and Southern Africa you are proposing we include along with East Africa.
2)It is neither a conservative view on what constitutes East Africa (which, again, would consist of just Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania per the dictionary definition you yourself supplied), nor an extreme one which co-opts parts of North, Central and Southern Africa like your map does.
3)It is very easy to read. It's properly color coded and does not include any confusing striping or anything of that nature.
4)It makes it clear which countries are traditionally considered a part of East Africa and which only sometimes are.
5)It includes a legend to accurately gauge distance per both 1000 km and 1000 mile.
6)It doesn't include any irrelevant links like the Central African Federation link in your map, which is beyond irrelavant since the CAF not only has precious little to do with East Africa as a whole to begin with, it's not even operational any longer.

Just because something is of "long-standing", doesn't make it right.

You also state in your introduction that "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries... Rwanda, Burundi, and Somalia", which is not true. Only Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary promotes this idiosyncratic and, frankly, very bizarre definition which reserves the "East Africa" distinction for those two adjacent Central African countries and, of all places, the eastern-most country on the continent despite thousands of miles and a whole slew of more easternly nations standing between them.

On top of that, your introduction alleges that Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia are "often reckoned" as the Horn of Africa. This is an understatement, to put it mildly. Those countries are always known as the Horn of Africa, and I even provided a reference supporting this in my latest revision.

Lastly, the "See Also" section in your reverted version still includes links to Wiki topics (e.g. History of West Africa, North African Campaign timeline, László Almásy, etc.) and to fringe ideological movements (Panafricanism?) that bear little to no relation to East Africa, yet relevant links such as the Axumite Empire and the Land of Punt are still curiously absent. 65.92.177.155 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless compelled otherwise, your map and edits to the introduction will continue to be reverted. First of all, it glazes over Egypt, which is clearly located in northeastern Africa and sometimes included in the region, just as Mozambique is in southeastern Africa. Your map also highlights Malawi (also in southeastern Africa) while not noting it upfront in text. The long-standing map is far more inclusive regarding differing notions of the region than your binary interpretation which isn't necessarily corroborated through sources provided, now AND previously. The definition per the UN geoscheme plus inclusions are neither extreme nor uncommon. Second, this article is not about just the 'Horn of Africa' per se, but the eastern part of the African continent; apropos, inclusion of the constituents of the defunct Central African Federation (which includes countries often included in Eastern Africa) is relevant. Third, a scale indicator is an unnecessary innovation for a locator map: point me to one other African locator map that has it. Lastly, the long-standing locator map was established despite objection, not because if it. You have provided little rationale to change the status quo here or elsewhere. 216.234.60.106 (talk)

You have got to be kidding. So now you want to co-opt Egypt too? Is that what all this is about?

Look, not one official source includes Egypt in East Africa, not even that lone UN scheme your entire argument is predicated on (which, again, is directly contradicted by the FAO and the IRIN Africa sources I cited -- both UN organizations). This factoid actually only serves to further invalidate your map since it includes Egypt as a putative member of both East Africa and the East African Community, neither of which it is.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition you cite above, in turn, is contradicted by the Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary definition you supplied earlier. It also runs counter to the New Oxford Dictionary and Encylopedia Britannica definitions of just what constitutes East Africa, like I've referenced in my latest reversion.

Again, your entire argument for reversion is based on that one UN scheme for Eastern Africa, which is not the same thing as East Africa despite the introductory sentence in your reversion that attempts to equate the two terms. That UN scheme for Eastern Africa, moreover, is directly undermined by the New Oxford and Merriam Webster's Geographical dictionary definitions you yourself supplied.

And that's just the map. As clearly outlined and re-outlined above, there is still a lot more that's wrong with your entire version of the article.

For instance, you state in your introduction that "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of... Rwanda, Burundi, and Somalia", which is not true. Only Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary promotes this idiosyncratic and, frankly, very bizarre definition that reserves the "East Africa" distinction for those two adjacent Central African countries and, of all places, the eastern-most country on the continent despite thousands of miles and a whole slew of more easternly nations standing between them.

On top of that, your introduction alleges that Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia are "often reckoned" as the Horn of Africa. This is an understatement, to put it mildly. Those countries are always collectively known as the Horn of Africa, a fact clearly supported by the two references I provided.

The distance legend in the map I reverted to also serves to give viewers an idea of just how large the countries in question are and how far apart they are from one another, something your map of course does not do. I can't believe you'd actually attempt to deny this.

The Central African Federation, again, does not include any East African countries. Hence, it's name. The only reason why the person that created the map put it there as a link in the first place was to justify the, at best, tenuous inclusion of Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi -- countries not considered a part of East Africa by the overwhelming majority of standard definitions, just like the many sources I've referenced clearly indicate. The CAF is also defunct, which only serves to render it's inclusion even more absurd. An East African organization that is actually relevant would have been something like the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which comprises Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda. Unlike the CAF, IGAD is also still extant.

Lastly, your map lasted this long only because no one hitherto bothered to effectively challenge its relevance and to properly investigate its claims. I can think of many a peculiar institution that lasted an awful long time too, and I don't mean a few months. Plus, let's not pretend I'm the first person to take exception to the article. A simple look through this talk page shows many of the exact same concerns already raised by other Wiki users. 70.48.98.2 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By two users AFAICT, and that a consensus doesn't make. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Catmain

Please remove the {{catmain}} template from line 111. This is only supposed to be used on category pages. Category:East Africa uses it to link back to this main article for example. — CharlotteWebb 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC) It's been done. — CharlotteWebb 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

History

We have a paragraph on the prehistory and then we go straight to european contact. Surely this wasn't just primitive savages before europe showed up? Zazaban (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There also needs to be a proper sub-section on Post-colonial History, including some details of both the first and second incarnations of the East African Community; probably the Conflicts section should be incorporated into this. Any takers? Apalomita (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

Given the recent edit war, I've opened the issue for discussion here. Night w (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Addition of new map

thumb|200px|right Recently, Danlaycock uploaded a photograph of a map showing eastern Africa (pictured right →). It shows Somaliland separated from Somalia, with its eastern border at its claimed location. I added the map to the "Conflicts" section of this article, which lists the various major civil wars that have shaped the region into what it is today. To the image, I added a caption which related the map's depiction of a broken Somalia to the Somali Civil War. A cropped version of the map was also added to the Horn of Africa article, and described the same subject.

Another editor, Middayexpress, removed both maps for reasons I didn't quite understand. However, I feel that these maps are relevant to the subject. They show the current de facto political situation, as a result of the multiple conflicts listed. Although the reverting editor has been temporarily blocked from editing (over the issue discussed above), and the maps have been restored, I'd like to get opinions from other editors over this issue. Any feedback would be welcome. Nightw 19:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted to show the "de facto" political situation, then large swathes of southern Somalia (even without Somaliland) that are controlled by Islamists would be separated from the area controlled by the Mogadishu government. The map would have to be constantly changing in response to the loss and regain of territory. Mainstream maps don't do this. Plus, what other states have Danlaycock separated with his judgment other than Somalia? Has he evaluated the autonomy of other subdivisions of the East African states, and how much is enough for us to split a state on a map? Quigley (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. Just to clarify: the author of the map is MapArt Publishing. Danlaycock just took a photograph of it... Nightw 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The fair use rationale is "To illustrate the fact that while Somaliland is not diplomatically recognised by any other state, third party sources treat it as an independent state." But are the views of one Canadian map publishing company consequential? I don't even know that Danlaycock's is the standard world map that they sell; they do custom maps. This map placement seems to unduly emphasize an extreme minority viewpoint in the world community. Also, the map is not a good illustration for the "conflicts" section, because it doesn't highlight specific areas of conflicts, and emphasizes a place—Somaliland—relatively without conflict. Danlaycock's map is simply not designed to show East African conflict, but is a standard political map of East Africa with the deceptive idiosyncrasy of showing an independent Somaliland. I can't see a good use for it in this article. Quigley (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's a photo of the standard MapArt World Map 2010 Edition, bought off the shelf, not a custom map.

I think the map demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you suggest. If it's an "extreme minority viewpoint" then why would a reputable (Canada's largest mapmaker) third party source include Somaliland? Just because it's diplomatically unrecognized, doesn't mean it's not academically unrecognized. Taiwan, for instance, has very limited diplomatic recognition but is almost always included on third pary maps. Sure Somaliland is not "widely accepted", but I think the map demostrates that it's not a fringe theory to include it.

For the record, I'm not particularly bothered whether the map is included on this article or not. I only uploaded the image at the request of Night. It might be more appropriate on the Somaliland article than here. TDL (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This map is unnecessary. As mentioned by other editors, Somaliland is not recognized by the UN. There are multiple autonomous regions within Somalia (Puntland, Galmudug, Maakhir, among others). Mainstream mapmakers do not include Somaliland on their maps.

The Eastern regions of Somaliland bordering Puntland are not fully controlled by the Hargeisa based government. And another thing is that the map mentions Eyl and Hurdiyo as major cities of Northeastern Somalia. This gives a false impression, these are very small fishermen villages (just look them up on Google Maps). The map leaves out Bosaso and Gaalkacyo (the two largest cities of the Northeast). I also do not like the quality of this map (low resolution). All in all, it does not add anything of value to the article and should be removed.

Wadaad (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree that the map should be removed from this article. However, on the Horn of Africa article, where things are more specific, it is necessary to show modern borders. It is a mainstream map, as demonstrated by the user who uploaded it. Nightw 06:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not object it being included somewhere on the Horn of Africa article (although not in the introduction), but it has no place here. Wadaad (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If the consensus is that File:East Africa.png doesn't belong here, and no one has any other use for it, I'll list it for deletion. (Fair-use images need to be used on at least one page in order to be kept.) The cropped version, File:Horn of Africa.png, will still be available. TDL (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you Dan. Sorry for the bother. Nightw 23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Geoscheme

An editor has added the secessionist Somaliland region of Somalia to the part of the text that lists the 19 actual countries that are part of the United Nation's geoscheme for Eastern Africa. However, the cited UN website [2] most certainly does not include the region among its list of actual countries in Eastern Africa. I have therefore removed this very obvious example of original research. Middayexpress (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because you dropped out of the arbitration doesn't mean that you can set the agenda here. It was agreed among the participants of the arbitration that a mention of Somaliland here is NPOV. The way that Somaliland was added makes it clear that it was not part of the list that the UN pushed, but that interested readers know where it fits in the scheme. --Taivo (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Somaliland was already included in the article (the point of the arbitration). But that apparently wasn't good enough, since you then attempted to add it to the section of the article exclusively reserved for actual countries that are a part of the U.N.'s geoscheme. And that, of course, still most certainly does not include the Somaliland region [3]. This makes your edit [4] very much original research. There's unfortunately no getting around that. Middayexpress (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted where relevant that the UN geoscheme includes Somaliland as part of Somalia. Nightw 12:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the UN geoscheme [5] does not recognize let alone mention any area/enclave in the territory of modern-day Somalia, whether the Somaliland region (which you listed) or the Puntland region (which you tellingly did not list). That is original research. The geoscheme only recognizes and includes Somalia itself, as it does with every other actual country in Eastern Africa. As promised, this matter has now been reported on AN/I. Middayexpress (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That map is also non-free, with no source (it could've been self-made or, more likely, taken from a partisan source) and has an OR caption that places undue weight on a separatist region; not to mention that it's marked for deletion. Middayexpress (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is about East Africa, not about the UN scheme. So it does not necessarily follow that only UN recognised countries can be mentioned. The article on Southern Europe allows mention of places like Gibraltar that are not explicitly mentioned in the UN scheme, andCyprus, which the UN scheme considers to be part of Western Asia. A place does not have to be a country to be mentioned in the UN scheme either, for example "Occupied Palestinian Territory" and "Åland Islands". It is really quite bizarre. Somaliland is not a region - it is a country that has unrecognised independence. Puntland is more of a grey area.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstood the situation. Somaliland -- which, actually, is not a country at all, but a secessionist region that is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia [6], [7] -- is already listed in the article. It is just not listed in the section of the article exclusively reserved for the 19 actual territories in the UN's Eastern African geoscheme. And this is specifically due to that fact that Somaliland is not part of the UN geoscheme (Gibraltar and Cyprus, incidentally, are both part of the UN's geoscheme for Southern Europe and Western Asia, respectively). That's all there is to it. Middayexpress (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress, you continue to ignore the consensus that was built up in a mediation effort for this precise issue last summer. You ignore WP:CONSENSUS. You also initiated an AN/I without bothering to notify anyone, which is a violation of proper behavior. A consensus has been reached on this issue. I suggest you stop your one-man edit war to push your POV. --Taivo (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A consensus was already built on this issue here. --Taivo (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a lamentable misrepresentation of the facts. The arbitration was over whether to include Somaliland among the territories listed in the East Africa article. It already was (and is) listed in the article when you tried to add it a second time [8]; only this time, to the section of the article exclusively reserved for the 19 territories in the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa. It's still unfortunately original research because Somaliland is, of course, not at all a part of the UN's geoscheme nor is any other region of Somalia; only Somalia the country itself is [9]. That's all there is to it. Middayexpress (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

At 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC), Middayexpress started a discussion of this issue on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Geoscheme. The conclusion of this discussion was a 1 week block for Middayexpress.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing that Middayexpress never understood was that no one was adding Somaliland as part of the list of 19. The UN scheme remained intact with 19 entities. The only thing that was being added was a parenthetical note for whoever was looking for Somaliland in the list that Somaliland was included within the entity Somalia on the list. Any other interpretation of the addition is false and misleading. The 19 entities on the UN list remain intact without change. Middayexpress continued to misrepresent the parenthetical note as an addition to the list. It was not. The list remained at 19 entities. --Taivo (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Map changes requested

The map should be updated not only to reflect the independence of South Sudan, but its inclusion in the region. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a good article

This article seriously needs improvement. Why is language in the middle of the history section (it ought to be a separate section, and more detailed)? Also no postcolonial history. No information about culture, religion, politics, or economy (just "conflicts"). Bad article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.102.136 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

East Africa, proper

It was determined by the British colonialist, for nearly a century, that East Africa is mererly Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. Other East Africans had to wait for wikipedia for redemption. Good on y'all for correcting the truth.--Ezeu 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble but there was nothing "determined" by a British colonialist. The British had their East Africa but at the same time the Italians had their East Africa... and once upon a time Germans... and so on and so forth. In other words they all had all their own piece land which they explicitly named "East Africa". Nothing unique was done by any particular "colonialist". Loginnigol (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Central East Africa which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Technical close. The move request is now under one multi-move umbrella at Talk:Central East Africa, as requested several times both here and there. Please comment there, rather than here. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

---

East Africa → Eastern Africa – east africa is one region of Eastern Africa which is the eastern right side of the continent I see there are now dedicated pages on the Horn of Africa and East Africa (Kenya Uganda Tanzania now expanded to include Rwanda and Burundi) east africa is a well known name for kenya uganda tanzania now expanded to include rwanda and burundi indeed the East African Communitywhich is the most important regional organization in Eastern Africa is made up of KUTRB millions of articles and books support this definition of East Africa. Although some confusion is found between East Africa and EastERN Africa it is generally no more than the confusion surrounding South Africa and SouthERN Afric. With the coming federation of the East African Communtity clear and precise wording for this page and this excellent article is needed. Eastern Africa is the best term for this region which is the EastERN right side of Africa not to be confused with East Africa which has been used for 50+ years for kenya uganda tanzania and recently expanded to include rwanda and burundi and with the coming EAST AFRICA federation I see there has been much discussion about this now that there is a separate east africa article for kenya uganda tanzania plus rwanda burundi AND Horn of Africa article for somalia ethiopia Eritrea Djibouti with both articles doing a good job describing two of the major regions of EastERN africa then a name change is needed ASAP to stop the confusion. This article is about the UN geoscheme for EastERN Africa and the name must reflect that I have requested a name change at the east africa article to be done with this once and for all! Eastafricancommunity2050 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastafricancommunity2050 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 01:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE there is a related requested move at talk:Central east Africa that is dependent on this move, so this is disjointed, and should be fixed as a proper multimove request -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment this article used to be situated at Eastern Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until it was renamed to "East Africa" -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sock puppetry

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjohnjames/Archive. There have been recent socks of User:Johnjohnjamesactive on this article and other articles relating to East Africa. I have noted the misuse of references dealing with genetics, ranging from unreliable sources to using sources to make an argument violating WP:NOR and WP:SYN - sources must specifically discuss the subject of the article (see WP:VRS), but this editor puts together sources to make an argument the way you would do in an essay. Feel free to strike through or remove posts here or to other talk pages or to revert article edits. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that the article Central East Africa be merged into East Africa, as there is a huge amount of duplication between these two, and because I see no clear rationale why we need two articles for this material. Please discuss? Wdford (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Also, "Central East Africa" appears to be essentially the same as the African Great Lakes region. Middayexpress (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, this article has completely lost its original purpose (Southeast Africa -> Andajara120000 definition -> Name change (renamed Central East Africa) -> Name change (renamed to East Africa which is odd since there already is a article). As for the "huge amount of duplication" this was done by the user Andajara120000 who has also gone and created his own definitions on other regions of Africa (as seen in the original discussion). Despite being told by me and several other users he still disputes this. AcidSnow (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. There is nothing in the article specifically about East Africa in the narrow sense (i.e., what Wikipedia calls Central East Africa). —  AjaxSmack  02:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool. We seem to have a fair amount of support for the merger, and no opposition yet voiced. Please can somebody who knows how to do it, take the next step for us? Wdford (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The next step is to continue discussion for at least five more days, see Wikipedia:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus; and I would hope that "a fair amount of support" comprises more than four people. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I like what User:Wdford did with Eastern Africa. I think it clears the way for a merger here. Walrasiad (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a problem on the East African Community page. A user has pasted text there exclusively referring to that African Great Lakes geopolitical grouping as "East Africa". This has a direct impact on this discussion, so we should probably decide right now how best to handle that as well. Middayexpress (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We have waited quite a while now, and all the editors who have expressed any interest have thusfar voted in support of the proposed merger of the article Central East Africa into East Africa, as there is a huge amount of duplication between these two articles with no apparent rationale to retain both. The article Central East Africa appears to have started life as a list-of-nations article, which seemingly was expanded quite recently into a full duplicate article by an editor now banned. Unless there is a compelling last-minute objection, could we conclude the discussion and implement the next step? Wdford (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on East Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081209103129/http://encarta.msn.com:80/dictionary_/east%2520africa.html to http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/east%2520africa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Egypt is not considered part of Eastern Africa

Egypt is not considered to be a part of East Africa. According to UN, African Union and every other international organisation and standards possible, Egypt is considered to be a part of North Africa. If questioned please explain how Egypt is part of Esst Africa.Richard0048 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Egypt is geographically located in both Eastern and Northern Africa; hence "Northeast Africa" .[10] This has already been explained to you by multiple users so please stop removing it. AcidSnow (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No it is not considered part of UN subregion for East Africa, nor African Unions definition for East Africa or African devolopment banks definition for East Africa, So please kindly stop reverting this in your favour. It's not located in northeast Africa but rather eastern north Africa. Thats a major difference. I have explained this for you in regard to the discussion on the Eritrea talk page and I have started a dispute resolution case for that issue, engage in that discussion instead. Richard0048 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The source I provided, which is the National Geography, explicitly states that's located in "Northeast Africa". AcidSnow (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, Richard also appears to have missed the fact that Egypt and Sudan are part of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. Soupforone (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because countries does have trade agreements with one another does not mean that they become part of eachothers regions or subregion. Simply by being a part of a trade agreement does not make Egypt part of southern africa or East africa. So China is per your definition considerated as Eastern Africa just because it's doing business there? Sudan on the other hand are is sometimes to be considered being a part of East Africa. Richard0048 (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, the United Nations and African Development Bank are intergovernmental organizations too. So by your own logic, Egypt and Sudan are part of East Africa since they are members of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. Soupforone (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The additions by User:AcidSnow seem to fine. I find it hard to ignore compass directions, no matter what the UN or someone else says about it. The reference is a bit terse on the subject, but does support Egypt being in East Africa. I think we need to break this discussion out into a more formal quest for consensus rather than edit-warring about it. I like to saw logs! (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. If we are going by raw latitude/longitude, Egypt and Sudan are in the continent's eastern hemisphere. However, since the geography here is apparently based on intergovernmental organizations, Egypt and Sudan would still make sense as they are part of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. With that noted, folks should avoid tweaking the localization until it is finalized. Soupforone (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources should be used. Egypt is located in North Africa, Sudan on the other hand is sometimes referred to as being part of EA so adding it would not an issue. 16:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Richard0048 (talk)

Both Egypt and Sudan are part of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, so that logic does not work. Soupforone (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

COMESA does not define what regions each countries are a part of. It is a free trade organization unlike UN and African Union. Egypt is by any credible source part of North Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is ironic since COMESA was actually established at the recommendation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. It was also formed in accordance with the Organisation of African Unity, which was the African Union's predecessor [11]. Soupforone (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That does not help actually. All countries in COMESA can be regarded as Eastern African or Southern African, besides Egypt that joined later on. It is part of North Africa. Why not rely on sources by UN and African Union and literature etc. Richard0048 (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your indicated rationale above was based on intergovernmental membership specifically, which pertains to the UN, AU and COMESA alike (COMESA is a Regional Economic Community, not just a trading area by the way [12]). You also alluded to compass points. These are different sorting criteria, so please choose one or the other. Anyway, while an area's compass location is determined by both latitude (horizontal mapping lines) and longitude (vertical mapping lines), obviously only longitude determines its east-west position. Egypt's geographical coordinates sit at a latitude in the continent's northern hemisphere and at a longitude in the continent's eastern hemisphere. On that basis (compass direction), it is not any more or less eastern than the other nations in the eastern hemisphere. AcidSnow is therefore correct when he explains that it is in Northeast Africa. Soupforone (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Egypt is still regarded as a North African country. The rationale explains to you that by UN and African Union definitons, Egypt is considered as North Africa country. And also by any credible definiton out there. Simly that is located in the most eastern part of northern Africa does not make it Eastern African. AU and UN pretty much define what is considered to be a part of the Eastern Africa region. Secondly the COMESA is a free trade agreement and nothing else, nothin like African Union or UN. By your logic US considered as a Southern African country simply because it have a free trade agreement with SA? And Marocco a West African country whcih is incorrect. I think you have misinterpeted the latitude discussion in the Eritrea article. That was discussed in relation to Eritrea latitute in East Africa in contrast the latitude of the Western African countries. That logic did also complement all the source's that were provided to you. Richard0048 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The UN and African Union obviously are not the be all end all on what constitutes Eastern Africa or any other region for that matter. Both are intergovernmental organizations like the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, and their membership is likewise voluntary. The African Union itself explains that COMESA is a Regional Economic Community, and that these are regional groupings of African states [13]. Countries are not obliged to join any of these associations if they don't want to. Morocco, for example, is not part of the African Union. Yet it's nonetheless in Northwest Africa, just as Egypt is in Northeast Africa. So yes, AcidSnow, Iazyges and Uriamme certainly have a point there. Soupforone (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You have not provided creditable sources. This goes to show that you do not aknowledge the use of sources. Marocco is not a West/Western African nation, and Egypt is not a East African/Eastern African nation.The cardinal direction "Northeast" is not the same as the region of "Eastern Africa" region. Egypt is regarded as the only north African country in COMESA, and again COMESA is a free trade organisation and nothing like African Union or UN. African Union itself includes Egypt in the region of North Africa so does UN and about every creditable source out there. AcidSnow has not provided sources, and Uriamme did not point out anything. The user specifically asked for a discussion. Richard0048 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong about COMESA, as just demonstrated. You can also ignore AcidSnow's National Geography link if you wish, but it's still there all the same. Uriamme indicated above that he actually agrees with AcidSnow and that he finds it hard to ignore compass directions, no matter what the UN or someone else says about it. That's the opposite of your intergovernmental organization-based argument. They are also correct that Egypt is in Northeast Africa since it's located in the continent's northern and eastern hemispheres. North indicates its latitude, whereas east is its longitude. Soupforone (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on East Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5kwpGdZ2z?url=http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/east%2520africa.html to http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/east%2520africa.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/weilue/weilue.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on East Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/east%2520africa.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/east%20africa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510133600/http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Projects/sdispersal/sdispersal.htm to http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Projects/sdispersal/sdispersal.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140131003947/http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Somalia_Somaliland_appeals_for_cooperation_with_Puntland_a_second_time.shtml to http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Somalia_Somaliland_appeals_for_cooperation_with_Puntland_a_second_time.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-sequitur conjunction

Situated in the northeastern portion of the continent, and Egypt and the Sudans are often included in Northern Africa.

Is the "and" unintentional? If not, you've only got one subject-oriented verb to go around, so simple "and" excision and "." insertion will kill one member of the conjoined twins. — MaxEnt 19:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

South Sudan

Wow, this section is messed up. Now I see that South Sudan is included in the first list (Central East Africa), and the last list (Nile Valley), which also shadows the North African list.

The South Sudan really gets around. — MaxEnt 19:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)