Talk:Africa

Locked

Why is the page locked ?

202.92.40.8 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Civilisation

There is no discussion of non-caucasians until being discussed as colonised - controlled - populations under caucasian colonialisation.

Surely the indiginous could be discussed first and then the colonisiation could come 2nd.

Confusing introductory sentence to Geography

"Africa is the largest of the three great southward projections from the largest landmass of the Earth." WTF does this mean? Can someone who understands this write it in a way that most people could understand? Maybe list the other two? What is a southward projection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.90.41 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The "largest landmass of the Earth" would be Eurasia, the combination of Europe and Asia (which are really one big land mass. "Southward projections" means, well, things that stick off of that landmass towards the south. The other two, I'm assuming, are India and Southeast Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.147.146 (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because something can be explained doesn't mean it's clear. The sentence is poorly written and probably unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.235.47 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if Cape Verde is going to be considered the Westernmost point on Africa... shouldn't Mauritius / Seychelles be considered the westernmost point? Cape Verde is an island not part of mainland Africa. The Easternmost point I would assume is part of Senegal, the Gambia or Mauritania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.156.19 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Being African

You need to have been born there or have traceable ancestry (within a few generations) to people who lived in Africa. Going there a few times does not make you African. If you think so, then you're just delusional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.42.229 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is descended from people who lived there, you'll have to be more specific than than. Zazaban (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

having Northern Ireland descent and going to Africa eight times does not make you African-American, Eileen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.64.29 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Defenition Of Horn of Africa

Hi guys i need a third party opinon regarding the defenition of the Horn of Africa. I am curruntly involved in a disbute about defenition of this subject.The term Horn of africa originates from a geographical name refering to a peninsula in east africa comprising somalia and and a part of south eastern Ethiopia. If you look at the map of africa you could clearly see this peninsula shaped like a Horn. However this is ommited from the wiki page on the horn. when i tried to add this to the wiki page i came to a dispute with a couple of contributors. They can't get their heads round the Term Horn of africa as well as being the actual name of a peninsula that the name is also used with reference to socio political area known as the Horn of africa region. they think the the term only refers to the region. They are completely ignorant of the origins of the name and the actual place it refers to. --Liban80 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to find a reference. This is an encyclopedia; all information must come from verifiable sources outside itself. If you can find a reference, then your problem will be solved. This isn't the place to discuss personal opinions on the subject. JoGusto (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Homo Sapiens

The entry says: "Africa, particularly central eastern Africa, is widely regarded within the scientific community to be the origin of humans and the Hominidae tree (great apes)," I think the "within the scientific community" part should be removed right away. It's self said that wiki is a science based encyclopaedia, and does not have to show consideration for certain religious believes. It's close to self censure.

I propose following sentence: " Africa, particularly central eastern Africa, is widely regarded to be the origin of humans and the Hominidae tree (great apes)," —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.83.18.197 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia (not 'wiki') is a community-based encyclopedia made up of all the speakers of a given language who can access it. It's not "self said" nor is it axiomatic that it is entirely "science based". It is indeed a collaboration made up of editors with a wide spectrum of beliefs. Additionally, Africa is the kind of place where your reputation precedes you. Jimbo Wales has recently expressed great concern with expanding Wikipedia's reputation among Africans, and English Wikipedia is one of the most looked-at examples. It needs to drop the saying "Wikipedia: we'll tell you what to believe" if it is to be taken seriously, and it also must strive to be truly NPOV with attributing beliefs to what sector they originate in. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

what is the population of africa

what is the population of africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.196.133 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, around 900,000,000. But that was from journals in demographics and estimates using various sources, published in academic articles - not from a not-for-profit demographic center in Washington. Who knows- maybe they have the right number. They seem to be working on providing up to the minute data. (It's in the main article as 1 billion) --LeValley 06:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Under etymology, the various shit should be chronologically ordered

By the data upon which they are based. I guss the problem starts with the Carthage sentence not having a citation. If the Romans were using the word - which Romans, and where? (I do not doubt that they were - I justwant a citation). Also, since the Romans used the word to refer to only a portion of what we now label Africa, is there any history of when the term began to be applied to the continent as a whole? The effect of using bullets for some hypotheses and not for others (the earlier paragraphs) makes the bulleted stuff look more important. Can't the bullets just be turned into a paragraph?--LeValley 05:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

1914 geopolitical map

The 1914 geopolitical map of Africa shows the territories which were under the sovereignty of various colonial powers at the time, not the territories which they claimed. There's a difference between claiming a territory and holding sovereignty over it. User:Til Eulenspiegel insists these territories were only claims made by colonial powers, rather than territories which they held sovereignty over. I on the other hand, along with user:Buistr insist these territories were under the control of colonial powers and were not just territorial claims. Yattum (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The boundaries on the map are claims, as they were not universally recognised, they were often disputed among the European powers themselves, not to mention the actual peoples who lived there on the ground. You know a great many folks then and now do not see any moral legitimacy to claims of European sovereignty in Africa; the idea became especially unpopular in the 60s and remains so. You consider the European claims fully legitimate, because_____ (why? please explain) I believe 'Claims' is accurate, given some dispute over the extent and legitimacy of European "sovereignty". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any question of using a map title to imply some dubious moral legitimacy for European rule over any of the extensive colonial territories of Africa in 1914. Colonialism was a harsh, exploitive business at best and few would now consider that in 1914 the French flag had any inherent right to fly over Algiers (or the British one over Bulawayo or the Portugese over Luanda etc etc) other than as a symbol of what was ultimately military occupation. However the reality of the period which the map is intended to illustrate was that the various colonial powers did exercise effective governance over the regions identified and were recognised in the international treaties of the time as doing so. The reason that I (and I think editor Yattum) feel uncomfortable with the wording "territorial claims" is that it is not an accurate description of colonial dominance over most of Africa in 1914, outside of areas of Morocco and Cyrenaica where there was armed opposition to French and Italian occupation that year. "Control by colonial powers" does not (IMHO) suggest any approval of an often brutal and unjust historicity. buistR 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the ethics being expressed here, which has no place on Wikipedia as it contravenes WP:NPOV, the fact is there's an enormous difference between claiming a territory and controlling it. Claiming a territory means a country states it has a right to wield sovereignty over that territory, in other words a country states it has the right to govern and control a territory but the reality is the country does not govern and control that territory, hence the country only claims that territory rather than holds sovereignty over that territory. Holding sovereignty over a territory means the country controls and governs that territory. These territories were by 1914 very much under control of colonial powers. To say these territories were simply claimed is to state that they were not under control. It defies belief that some here do not know the difference between a claim and holding sovereignty. Let me make it simple for you. For example, China holds sovereignty over Hong Kong and claims Taiwan, because China controls Hong Kong but doesn't control Taiwan. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for you to correct history to meet your own personal views, as I stated at the beginning and gave a link to the Wikipedia page which states personal views are not allowed to suppress facts. It also constitutes WP:Weasel words (misleading language) and contravenes WP:Call a spade a spade (calling something as it is). Yattum (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You actually state "These territories were by 1914 very much under control of colonial powers." Yes, the arrogance and sheer audacity of that statement is what I am disputing. It betrays a sheer ignorance of the situation; I can believe Buistr has cracked open a book but you seem like you have not and are only arrived here to push a POV. The indisputable historical fact is that the "great" powers were at war with one another in 1914. Much of this had to do with the fact that the powers didn't recognize one anothers "claims" (yes, claims) in Africa. Did you get that? They didn't even recognise one another's claims, and went to war in that year. In addition as Buistr pointed out the "claims" of sovereignty or as you put it "right" to govern were in several cases bitterly contested by the people who were in actual possession, not lines drawn up on a map, in a smoke-filled room. This map shows what the smoke filled rooms showed. You know better than to pretend they are anything but claims, and please do not come here pretending your view of history has widespread support any more. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel - please do not misinterpret what I have written above. Please do not direct emotional language against other editors.

To clarify:

- On the eve of the outbreak of World War I (August 1914) there were, as noted above, two areas of significant opposition to colonial rule in Africa. The remaining forty-odd colonies, protectorates and provinces comprising European-ruled Africa were peaceful at that time. If you know of other instances of open resistance then please identify them.

- The outbreak of World War I arose because of a variety of issues within Europe itself compounded by interlocking treaties and sparked off by violence in the Balkans. Earlier colonial disputes relating to boundaries had been resolved at a diplomatic level and were not a direct contribution to the European powers going to war that year.

As far as the most appropriate caption for the map goes, I would vote for editor Crime Central's wording. Can we reach consensus on this? buistR 04:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel, you are clearly being disruptive and your edits are against the wishes of most editors. Your reasons for the territories being only claims are completely historically untrue. It seems you are very angry about colonial powers having ruled in Africa and are trying to change history. Most people don't like the fact empires existed, but Wikipedia can't pretend they didn't. Please understand and respect WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for personal views, only academic facts. These territories were governed by colonial powers for as long as centuries, they were not simply lines on a map. This is academic fact, documented over and over again. Territories in Africa were most of the time governed by colonial powers without much resistance, the First World War was not caused because of colonial territorial conflict in Africa, and most colonial powers recognised each others sovereignty over the territories they held. In fact little fighting amongst colonial powers ever happened in Africa as did any form of rebellion against colonial rule in the period up to 1914. Yattum (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to prior to the edit war. Let's work s.t. out here, folks. (Also, 2 out of 3 is "most editors"? Hardly.) kwami (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad other editors are arriving to help. The argument is were the territories of colonial powers in Africa in 1914 territories of colonial powers, which they controlled or were they just territorial claims, which they didn't control? I'd like to know if the territories of colonial powers weren't under their control then just what did the territories become independent of when they became sovereign states? Surely they had always been sovereign states otherwise weren't they? I and everyone else appear to agree the territories were under control of colonial powers, whereas user:Til Eulenspiegel believes they were just territorial claims, which weren't under any control. Yattum (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not that case that only 2 out of 3 agree. Regular editor user:CrimeCentral also reverted user:Til Eulenspiegel's edit. It is only user:Til Eulenspiegal whose edits are conflicting with other users. Yattum (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If this article can't keep to WP:NPOV due to personal views of some users then a bias tag should be placed at the top of the article. I have notified the Admins' noticeboard of the argument on this article and the lack of WP:NPOV. I'm interested to get users unassociated with the article involved. Yattum (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't what we think it should be that counts, but how history writes it. AFAIK you're right, but I haven't read colonial African history in a long time. (There's also the question of mere claims in 1880 hardening into empire by 1940.) Anyway, if RS describe it as I suspect they do, it shouldn't be too difficult to demonstrate. kwami (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think, as it seems with other editors, the most accurate and most neutral way of wording the caption was to state the territories were in 1914 under control of European colonial powers. It's pretty extreme for Wikipedia to claim European empires never existed, which the whole claim instead of sovereignty arguement implies. Yattum (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again Yattum seems to be stuck in the smoke-filled halls and drawing rooms of 1914 where colonialist power brokers drew these same lines over a map of places thousands of miles from where they had personally been. In many cases these lines have always meant little to the people whose territory they divided across, giving half of them to Germany and half to France, or whatever. They are the claims of the philosophy of imperialism, which has a way of rearing its ugly head even now. As I pointed out, the powers also disputed one another's claims in 1914, leading to world war. Also please do not misconstrue my position with false logic. I'm not saying that the colonialist powers did not enjoy any sovereignty anywhere in Afria, and that these were ALL just disputed territorial claims. But if even ONE of them was disputed, we can't claim the map to be accurate. If one made an accurate map that showed what Europeans de facto possessed in 1914, I daresay it would different from the official WhiteHall pipe dream we see here. The imperialist philosophy here is very similar to the POV argument that colonialist nations enjoyed complete sovereignty in North America by the year 1750. No, they claimed complete sovereignty in North America by 1750. This was by virtue of the false argument that the people actually living there did not count, and could not be sovereign in themselves, because they were not members of the Church. We have looked up these laws of the Pope and King James, and can show them to you; that is precisely what they say. You might argue that these claims were therefore valid. But most of the land remained under the effective control of the native people living there until they were forced off and onto reservations, which was well after 1750. The colonists never even got close to doing this in much of Africa, before colonialism in Africa was reversed thanks to strong leadership among Africans in the 20th century. You accuse me of having a POV but I'm telling it like it is, and you are spouting imperialist doctrine. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that even today some people in Africa have never heard of the country they're supposed to be in. Peter jackson (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is typical of Wikipedia. A user claims European empires never existed and his idea is accepted as the truth because most users here are sympathetic towards his ideas. Your bad faith when you call me an imperialist, simply for stating the facts, is also tolerated, again because of sympathic users here. There's not an ounce of NPOV here. Your so called history comes straight from cloud cuckoo land. Your claims that European empires never existed, that the First World War was directly caused by Africa, and so on. It doesn't mattered if Africans liked or accepted European empires in Africa, they were governed over all the same. Besides, 99% of the time Africans accepted being governed over without any resistance. And European countries didn't dispute each others territories in Africa. That's why they never fought each other over their territories in Africa. You show a serious lack of understanding of the meaning of claims and sovereignty, you must have no idea that a claim is the wish to govern over a territory and sovereignty is actually governing over a territory. Or you are just choosing to deny this to fit in with your own personal historical views, which is what I believe is actually going on here. It's a shame Wikipedia accepts the orgininal research of an extreme left-wing person over academic historical facts, but Wikipedia has a reputation of doing this all the time. So even today do countries such as the United States only claim Puerto Rico or does the United States actually hold sovereignty to over it? The United States holding sovereignty over Puerto Rico today is exactly the same as say Great Britain did over Kenya in 1914. This article has one of the worst cases of revisionist bias I've seen. Yattum (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, on the note that some people in Africa still don't know what country they live in even today, claiming this must mean European empires never existed in Africa, does this mean Brazil doesn't hold sovereignty over the Amazon, considering many of its inhabitants have had little if any contact? Therefore Brazil must be a considerably smaller country, limited only to areas around Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, and the Amazon must just be a claim made by Brazil rather than a part of Brazil? I'm sure many of the inhabitants of the Amazon don't like being under Brazilian sovereingty and wish the Europeans had never arrived, but I want to know is does this mean then that the Amazon is not a part of Brazil and Brazil's inclusion of the Amazon as a part of Brazilian territory is merely lines on a map drawn up thousands of miles away in smoke filled rooms? The answer for this is exactly the same as the answer for Africa with regard to European territories in 1914. Yattum (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I repeat, please do not misconstrue my position with false logic. Neither I, nor any other editor, has argued that there were no European empires in Africa. What I have been saying all along is that the lines on that map include some claims that were very much in dispute, therefore we have to continue the previous consensus and call them claims for NPOV, and not endorse the boundaries on that map, or give all these claims our stamp of approval. Even if one boundary on the map is disputed and the others are all correct, then the map shows "claims", not actual possession. And actually the boundaries on that map are a pipe dream, the situation on the ground was different in several places as you ought to realize. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there's been quite a lot of views thrown around here, maybe we should start hammering out what would be a NPOV wording? It would be best for all round if the dipsute was resolved with a wording which we were all happy with. I think the best way forward is for editors to propose wording and then others to comment and amend. Yattum (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Yattum (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please look more closely at the map caption in my last edit that you reverted. It was not a 3RR revert, rather I attempted to cover ALL the bases with this compromise wording: "Areas of Africa under the control, influence, or claimed control, of the colonial powers in 1914 (outbreak of World War One)." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would accept that wording if you are happy to reinsert it. I think it's unfair to call the map a pipe dream as it does relfect much of the situation as it was in 1914. There's been a severe clash of views but I think that this can be resolved. Yattum (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the Admin who protected the article that there seems to be a solution now. Views have been aired, now hopefully the page can be unprotected and the solution added. I think it's actually healthy for the article that views were aired so that everyone knows where everyone stands. Do you wish for your version to be reinstated so this can be brought to a close? Yattum (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, back to the previous semi-protection. kwami (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of accurately reflecting the history of Africa, Walls of Benin could use some serious attention, and deserves it. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the New Scientist article, which was the best RS I had had access to. kwami (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've reinstated Til Eulenspiegel's version. Seems like this is solved now. Yattum (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As a very inactive editor, but frequent user, I would like to offer my opinion that this discussion reflects, IMO, a very immature and self-centered interest in "being right" on the part of certain persons. There is WAY too much opining, and way too little citation of relevant, verifiable material supporting the "writing" (not opining) which is supposed to be the substance of a Wikipedia article. Even in the talk pages, you should be making your points with references to outside material, not by empassioned arguments coming from your head or your gut, although using logic is a good idea. :-)

Regardless of the editors' personal views about the subject, they should be writing material which derives from verifiable sources other than their own personal POV, and I'm afraid so much of this discussion is more of the latter than the former. As a process, it scarcely broaches anything resembling "professional" and "detached," although I tend to side with Yattum's side of the discussion in general. Finally, I'll note that one of the editors has chosen a particularly provocative handle for their online Wikipedia persona, one that casts serious doubt upon their bona fides and intentions here:

Regarding the literary and semi-historical figure Til[sic] Eulenspiegel, Brittanica notes: The jests and practical jokes, which generally depend on a pun, are broadly farcical, often brutal, sometimes obscene, often scatological; but they have a serious theme. In the figure of Eulenspiegel, the individual gets back at society; the stupid but cunning peasant demonstrates his superiority to the narrow, dishonest, condescending townsman, as well as to the clergy and nobility. ...

Giving oneself the moniker of a "brutal, sometimes obscene" and "stupid" jester from the past is hardly an enticement for giving one a fair hearing, IMO. Although there are some good points in this thread, brevity supported by the appropriate citations would have cut to the chase much more effectively. JoGusto (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First, seeing how the articles on Wikipedia is, to paraphrase the old saying, like watching sausage being made: it's not for the squeamish because it can get disgusting at times. Second, this discussion about colonial boundaries would have likely gone far more smoothly if terms had been better defined at the beginning; instead it appears to have rambled far & wide while including, at least at one point, some unconstructive hair-splitting. Yes, there were disagreements over boundaries between the colonial powers, as well as parts of the territories which likely never recognized colonial rule; de jure possession is not always identical with de facto control. (And in answer to Peter Jackson's question above, yes there were parts of Africa where the inhabitants did not know they were part of a larger colony until late into the 20th century. One example is one ethnic group in the lower Omo valley of Ethiopia -- the Dima, I believe -- who only learned they were part of Ethiopia either during the Derg or the Federal Republic. But getting around in Ethiopia is difficult -- even relative to the rest of Africa, & the Omo valley is one of the most remote corners of Ethiopia, so there might not be many other examples of this degree of isolation.) Agreeing on what exactly this map is supposed to present would go a long way towards making everyone happy. -- llywrch (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Llywrch... this no longer seems to be about editing the article, since as you see, Yattum and I came to a compromise understanding for the wording some days ago. But your response does invite further discussion about the difference between terms like de facto (ruling in actual fact) and de jure (ruling not in fact, but only according to someone's law (or POV), such as, eg, beginning with the Pope's law in the Treaty of Tordesillas awarding half the world to Spain and half to Portugal) Any connection with my username being named for a folkloric jester, and a superb horn piece by Strauss, is of course, a fallacious argument in this discussion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)