Talk:North Africa

Arabs in Maghreb

:This is a silly title and obviously written by a non-native and misinformed non-scholar. The Maghreb is almost wholly Arab, with the exception of southern morocco. Mauritania is not and historically has never been part of the Maghreb and certainly not the numerous sub-saharan countries that are listed in the article by an obvious afro-centric extremist who does not realize that the sahara divides two worlds, that is the north is mediterranean and in no way related to sub-saharan africa. 

I find it silly when some Berber people want us to be of Berber descent.We are Arabs!and even if our ancestors were Berbers,now we would be Arabised so don't force us to be Berber,as you don't like being forced to be Arab.It is called racism.So the phrases like "berbers no longer speak Berber language,they identify themselves as ARABS" are idiotic and disinform the peple.

Most Moroccans are Sunni Muslims of Arab, Berber, or mixed Arab-Berber stock. The Arabs invaded Morocco in the 7th and 11th centuries and established their culture there. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5431.htm

Nearly all Algerians are Muslim, of Arab, Berber, or mixed Arab-Berber stock. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/8005.htm

please note that the word ARAB is always the first,it means it is predominantly ARAB.We are all proud of being of Arab ancestry as you're proud of your Berber language,peace

Regarding the rather extreme note supra from Mariam83, while I would note disagree that there has been a creeping insertion of what one might term "Berberist" viewpoints in articles such as North Africa and Maghreb, that does not excuse your edits, which are highly tenditious, POV and sloppy in terms of English usage and editing (i.e. copying from other websites is NOT appropriate). One should also note that your statement re "Arab first" would not be agreeable to "all" persons. Tone it down a bit bint. (collounsbury 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Berbers, Arabs and Ethnicity Wars

The article's discussion of ethnicity in North Africa strikes me as rather poorly done and internally contradictory. To quote The people of North Africa can be divided into roughly four distinct groups: the Arabs, that came in the 700's and mixed with the berbers, the Berbers of the Maghreb; the Tuareg and other, original black Berbers; and the Nilotic blacks of the Nile Valley. Maghreb Berbers are generally fairer-skinned than the Berbers to the east. They are considered indigenous to the area, and are believed to be the descendants of black Berbers mixed with Asiatic and Caucasoid peoples who spread westward, laterally across the continent. Berbers predominate in the northwestern part of Africa, but the area also hosts various black Berber peoples and equatorial Africans, as well. Over the centuries, there has been some intermarriage producing a population with a wide range of phenotypical characteristisc, ranging from fair skin and straight hair to swarthy to dark complexions and curly or kinky hair.

Most Maghreb Berbers outside much of Morocco and parts of Algeria identify themselves as Arabs and no longer speak Tamazight, their original language, but speak Arabic. Far more Tuareg Berbers speak Tamazight -- an Afro-Asiatic language-- but they, too, have been Arabized culturally, though to a far lesser extent than have the Berbers of the Maghreb.

First, the seperate citation of Tuareg from other berbers and the assertion of 'original black berbers' strikes me as confused and without foundation (as well as in contradiction with the much stronger Berbers article. I am aware of hypotheses of ancient black - as in sub-Saharan African phenotype populations in North Africa - in the Saharan region, which seem well supported, but calling them Berber strikes me as excessively speculative and unsupported by scholarship. I will rephrase this if there are not strong cited objections.

Second, the reference to Asiatic and Caucasoid populations seems again speculative and using dated, inaccurate language. (The phrase "some intermarriage" strikes me as an amusingly dim understatement, as a resident of the region). The assertion regarding Berbers in the Maghreb versus "farther East" is factually incorrect, as any visitor to the Siwan Oasis can tell.

Third, the discussion of Arab versus Berber is bizarre and very POV. It would be far less prejudicial to note most Arabs in North Africa are of at least partial Berber descent (although our Algerian commentator below seems to be in a bit of a tizzy about the low liklihood of actual djezira arabiya genes in his lineage), rather than the prejudicial Berbers identifying as Arabs language. (Collounsbury 09:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).

== My question is a simple one. We often hear of the politically correct term "African American" to refer to American Blacks. I've always felt that this term was innacurate in the sense that not all of Africa is populated by what you would consider "Blacks". (Plus, being a Canadian, we've never adopted the term "African-Canadian") Aside from European colonizers in South Africa, Zimbabwe etc...a large portion of Africans from north of the Sahara are simply not "Black". Should a Moroccan-American be considered an "African-American" or not? The political correctness reached the pinnacle of silliness when Jay Leno's wife, on speaking of the terrible treatment of women in Taliban Afghanistan, compared their plight to that of "African-Americans in Apartheid South Africa". Really? Are there really that many African-Americans in South Africa? If so, what are they doing there? Are they on vacation from the U.S.?Loomis51 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What does this question have to do with North Africa? If there is a real question, it would be what is the classification in North America of North Africans. That's a North American problem, but per my best understanding, in the US immigration data records almost all North Africans as "white." My understanding may be defective of course. (Collounsbury 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).

• • That's an excellent point, Loomis, and it's why I don't use the term "African-American". Anthropological misnomers like that give people incorrect ideas, like that all of Africa is Negroid(which Afrocentrist-extremists seem to actually believe), or that all of Asia from Turkey to Vietnam is Mongoloid(Wormwoodpoppies 03:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)).

I am Arab from Algeria and i know we are Arabs in origin,we have an Arab identity and the berbers from Algeria or Morocco recognize us as ARAB CONQUERANTS since 1400 years,some Arabs obviously mixed with berbers just like all the Arabs did everywhere they went,but we are still ethnically ARAB.It is not serious telling that we are BERBERS in origin,then in an other article ( maghreb ) tlling we are predominantly of middle eastern origin.It is contradictory,actually even the US GOVERNMENT is mistaken,the US DEPARTEMENT OF STATE tells Algerians are of arab,arab-bereber or berber stock then the world factor book tells we are almost all berbers in origin.Europeans see MAGHREB as the symbol of Arab world,Europeans moved to America,Arabs moved to North Africa,simply. I OBVIOSULY correctd this article telling "most of the berbers identify themselves as Arabs" because it doesn't make sense.If you tell an Arab from Algeria or Morocco he is Berber he would be surprised,if you tell a berber that Arabs from Algeria or Morocco are BERBERS he would tell you "THEY CAME FROM ARABIA AND ARE NOT BERBERS".Arabs from Middle East including Egyptians condier us as Arabs ethnically and so do we.Unlike the Arabized black Africans Sudanese that call themselves ARABS but are not considered as ethnically ARABS by us or by the Middle Eastern Arabs.Also i tell that MAGHREB and MIDDLE EAST are not very opposed culturally,the differences almost don't exist.

"Those who traveled North were almost entirely absorbed into the waves of Middle Easterners who had already begun their migrations into the region."

This is based on the almost certainly false assumption that the Afro-Asiatic languages originated in the Middle East. In fact, most modern linguists think they came out of the Horn of Africa, whose population then was much more racially diverse than it is today. --Mustafa.

---

It's not a good idea to crop off the southern half of Africa just too save space on this page. Having the whole continent orientates the reader better. --Menchi 01:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The image is reasonably small byte-wise and while it is rather wide (360px), it's still within the customary limits. The height doesn't matter much because the list by which it is placed extends downwards so there's enough room. --Shallot 12:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Few Studies

I was reviwing a few studies and noticed some intersteing patterns among NW Africans TYPICALLY (I realize this is a broad region with variation on the micro level). NW Africans have Y Chromosomes (male lineages) that emerge from Holocene (recent epoch) Sub-Saharan East Africa at a rate of about 75%. About 20% of their male lineages emerge from Holocene Eurasia. Typically about 70% of the mtDNA (female lineages) in NW Africa come from Holocene Eurasia and about about 30% from Sub-Saharan East and West Africa (M1 and L lineages). U6, which is of Upper Paleolithic origin (and hence not associated with modern phena) occurs in pooled NW African groups at about 15%. So in a broad sense one might say that NW Africa contributed male lineages to SW Europe and SW Europe contributed female lineages to NW Africa. --Orionix 23:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like that could be explained in terms of quite recent history... - Mustafaa 00:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is getting a bit comleccated for a 8 year old like me--SmartyJon (i dont think i am so smart now

Sudan, Canary Islands, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Madeira?

The official language of Ethiopia Amharic is a derivative of Ge'ez, both Afro-Asiatic languages that are typical of other North African countries. This is the basis for the classification of both countries as North African, although the majority of people in both countries are considered to be Black Africans (and thus Eastern) as a result of skin color. --- The article says that Sudan, the Canary Islands, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Madeira are countries of North Africa. How could that be? North African people are racially white, and countries like Sudan, Canary Islands, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Madeira have a black African majority. So, how could these countries be described as North African?--66.81.168.114 02:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason for this is that Ethiopia and the surrounding areas are known for the rich ancient history which compels many people of European descent to emotionally classify them further away from a "pure" black perspective, towards a more comforting "white" perspective. The closer the association northward, the closer to the "white". The civilization of Ethiopia is older than any other, and therefore it is hard for many to accept that this civilization is a Black one. While on the other hand it's beyond a doubt that Ethiopia is not an Arab, or Middle Eastern country. Therefore the green color of Ethiopia is tinted differently from the rest, allowing those who cling emotionally to a "non" black Ethiopian past the comfort when they see the picture, and acknowledging (grudgingly) that Ethiopia is not really a part of North Africa.

Don't you think you could have come up with a more decent, non-racist answer (whoever you are)? Ethiopia is probably considered to be part of North Africa sometimes because it is commonly considered to be part of NE Africa, therefore it can be considered to be in both East Africa and North Africa. Also, it is closely related to North Africa, and thus to Eurasia, culturally. The civilization of Ethiopia is not "older than any other", there are plenty that are older (viz. Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylon, Canaan, Minoa, Greece, India, China, Olmec, Maya, Kush, Rome, Persia, Media; not in chronological order, but all being older than Axum, which was Ethiopia's first empire). This, of course, doesn't mean that Ethiopia's is any less than any other civilization, because not all civilizations can arise and climax or even exist at the same time. There is no need to take jabs at an entire group of people the way this person has done. I won't attempt to psychoanalyze this person the was they have distressingly attempted to psychoanalyze others (obviously not so much for the sake of understanding and explaining the thoughts and words of others as for the sake of attacking them), for the deeper reason they have said these things is one that only they can share with us. --Jugbo

I wanted to make a comment about Eritreans.MOST Eritreans dont look like they are from Sudan or Ethiopia. Most are light skinned and have more curlier hair and are associated as looking more like the North Africans from Egypt. There is even a group there called the Rashaida there who look like they are "white". So I dont see anything wrong with associating Eritrea as being apart of North Africa. This is how you can tell Ethiopians and Eritreans apart.

I would not even try to call them white, but those people could prove or disprove a type of Arabian phenotype. Some of them look like the classical "Asiatics" that always gave the ancient Egyptians hell.--71.235.81.39 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I looked in the berber artiles and there was nothing there that supported your arguemnts that berbers who inhabit most of north africa were not black. Same goes for Egypt. This seems to be a very one-sided view. It makes no sense that in the Egypt and berber artilces we acknowlegde that Egyptians are a racial mixture of black and arab and other and north africans originate in east africa and have 75% of that blood group and here says the opposite. This article needs to be consistent with the other views represented on wiki. You can't have 3 different articles saying 3 different things about 1 group of people. I'm going to remove the part where you say that North Africans are non-black because there are already other articles that refute that and explain why so I don't really need to parrot other people. I will simply leave it with no race explained until this gets hammered out because we should not be misleading and confusing people with opposite definitions on one race or country of people. Besides I don't really know how race determines what geographical location you are? I mean do we say Italians, Spainards and Portugese people are in south europe because they are mixed with moor or do we say they they are south europe because of there physical location(Southern region of Europe). Jmac800

I removed the blantant contradiction from the article. It said that North Africans were Arabs followed by saying they are berbers. What a contradiction people won't take this site seriously if it is filled with them. Yes they have Arabic culture but the vast majority of them are Berbers with arabic culture.

"North Africa is often set apart from the sub-Saharan African region, as the desert serves more of an obstacle to communication than the sea itself." No source just someone spewing trash. I have no problem with statements that are fact based. This is clearly not. 1. No source is provided. 2. The Ocean was not a barrier as proven by the Romans and especially the Carthgians who never had trouble running a massive maritime trade. 3. There were various kingdoms who traded using the Sahara and Kanem Bornu set up a powerful empire based on basically robbing people who passed through the Sahara to go to East asia or West africa. The Wagdou of Ghana and the Songhai empire never seemed to have trouble passing this impassible barrier and setting up empire in them.

Canary Islands and Madeira are populated by white people, a mix of europeans and berbers. Usually considerated geographically africans because geological and ecological reasons.

-Fco

Western Sahara

I would like to see references of the UN definition of North Africa. The UNICEF for example (a UN "affiliate") doesn't include it at all. At the UN website, when North Africa is dealt with, Western Sahara is sometimes mentionned and sometimes not. My point is, even though you can sometimes find a reference to it, it is misleading to place it at the same level as Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, etc., in that it easily leads to misreading it as a state (despite the term territory being used).

The UN has an unambigous division of the African continent into subregions for statistical and other purposes. Possibly the African Union has a slightly different way of geo-grouping its members. //Big Adamsky 12:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that, BA. For clarity and consistency, I've reorganised and edited regional articles about Africa ... and will be doing so to the main article soon. Apropos, I purposely used the term "territories" (and not "countries" or "states") to account for Western Sahara (given its political status) and its inclusion in the UN subregion of Northern Africa. I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It does, thank you EPA. I couldn't find the link by myself. What do you think about reformulating it as "countries and territories", in order to avoid any confusion? --Yobaranut 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

NP. Hmmm, I'm unsure that would clarify anything: we are properly describing six sovereign states/countries and (just) one 'anomaly' claimed by one of those states – "territories" is descriptive yet neutral. We could even say "political divisions" or add a parenthetical note to the WS entry, but I think anything else would be superfluous. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Claimed by vs Occupied by with links

Koavf, the issue has alread been discussed (WS section). Mostly occupied by is POV, as the territory is disputed. Claimed by is more NPOV.--Yobaranut 17:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

===>What? The Sahara is a classic example of an occupied territory! How is it not occupied? Saying that it's claimed by such-and-such does nothing to explain the reality of the political situation. -Justin (koavf), talk 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why there are articles that specifically deal with those topics and are wikilinked appropriately: we needn't overload an introduction with excessive details or varied interpretations of the political status of WS that are elaborated upon elsewhere. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Okay Well, this is hardly TMI, as it's two extra words. But that still doesn't actually answer or even address my question, and the fact that it is occupied is an undeniable fact, so stating it is not POV; in point of fact, it's completely relevant. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, it is TMI: the list upfront is summative, and wikilinks below are sufficient. Shall we include capitals or area figures as well? These details are dealt with elsewhere. And this is more than sufficient for your query. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Not really Even if we agree to disagree about the TMI, my question was:

"How is [Western Sahara] not occupied?"

It was directed to Yobaranut, but anyone can jump in here. This will lead to the question, "How is the phrase 'mostly occupied' POV?" -Justin (koavf), talk 20:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

For a short answer: because for a significant part of the world, maybe a majority, saying that WS is occupied is like saying that California is occupied by the United States. So both are POV since its status is actually disputed. "Claimed by" is NPOV, it doesn't say who's right and who's wrong. Like EPA, I think the point is made and going over it again is beating a dead horse.--Yobaranut 23:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Deal with it. The current phrasing is succinct and sufficient. Anyone can visit the wikilinks below for more information. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Okay Our conversation is done. There's no reason to say "deal with it;" if you don't like what I have to say, ignore it, as the entire point was not directed at you in the first place. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should I refrain from commentary? I will "jump in" whenever I please. After all, this is a talk page all Wikipedians have access to. Importantly, when you continue to insinuate a POV and making a point despite two editors who previously discussed this (above) and still disagree with you, you deserve the rebuke you got. And yes: this conversation is done. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Don't forget your place You have no authority over me, so please don't act so condescending or as though you have some right to be anything less than civil to me. You don't need to act persecuted: I didn't tell you to not jump in, or that you have no right to voice your opinion. I'm not insinuating a POV - what exactly is the POV? Can you tell me that? -Justin (koavf), talk 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yobaranut: I'm not exactly sure what it is you are saying here, but people's opinion of fact is irrelevant - fact itself is. If most governments/people thought that the West Bank wasn't occupied, should Wikipedia say it's not? Of course not. The West Bank is undeniably occupied. So is the Sahara. It's factual, not a matter of taste or opinion. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It is very much a matter of taste, it is no less a matter of taste than saying Montana is occupied by the US (and there are some nuts out there who do support that idea that Montana is occupied - does that mean it is?). There is a dispute of a greater scale in the case of WS indeed, thanks to Algerian and Spanish support among others, but it doesn't make it less POV to say that it is occupied than saying it is undisputably Moroccan. Anyway, this is all offtopic relatively to this article, and it has already been settled --Yobaranut 01:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Western Sahara vs. Montana The simple fact that you call those people nuts shows that your comparison is inherently flawed. The United States does not maintain control of Montana by using its military, subsidizing settlers, laying down a huge wall of landmines, or napalming innocent refugees. There will always be people that deny reality, but the reality is that the Sahara is a classic example of an occupied territory. Can you explain how it isn't occupied, since it apparently is. -Justin (koavf), talk 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever been in those places? No seriously, I know both Algeria and Morocco for having family in both, and having lived/spent much time there, for having family and friends in both countries. My family was out there in Algeria back in 75 when Algerian regime unsuccessfully tried to get a piece of the WS cake. We saw them when after failing, they started going around with their loudspeakers, loading young unemployed Algerians from the streets into military trucks from as far as the Tunisian border and dumping them in Tindouf to call them Saharan refugees. I'm not saying Morocco is clean in this story, but despite all the evil you could say about Hassan II, he wasn't stupid, and he knew how to kill the chicken in the egg. The Polisario might have had a case back in 75, but with each round of agreements, the majority of old historical leadership of the Polisario defected bits by bits, leaving only a bunch of power hungry radicals in bed with the Algerian military. The fact that you compare the WB to the WS shows how much you're out of touch with that reality too. I have been to Israel and the WB too, worked there and spent some time. Sahraouis have Moroccan citizenship, they have equal rights with other Moroccans and even some priviledges, those who give up armed fight against Morrocco are given full amnesty and can live like any other Moroccan, etc, etc. I wish the situation of Palestinians, even those with Israeli citizenship was anything close.--Yobaranut 02:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yobaranut, wanted to simply express my appreciation for note. As an old North Africa hand, I was bemused to find the Western Sahara situ blown up as it is here on the wiki. (Collounsbury 01:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Now this is going way too off topic, and I don't think the purpose of this page is promoting a cause, or a POV over another. So I'm over (really:)) with this subject in this talk page, unless it has relevance to edition of this article.--Yobaranut 02:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Language Assertions

I have once more removed this sentence: "The dialects spoken in the Sahara (both Arabic and Berber) are in general notably more conservative than those of the coast. " for three reasons: one I fail to see the relevance; two although I understand the linguistic reference as written it would be prone to misunderstanding by non-specialists (or those unfamiliar with the usage; three, I am not sure it is true and would like to see a citation. (collounsbury 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)) I also edited the Berberist assertions re identity. I am certainly not hostile to Berber identity aspirations -being married to a Chleuha, but the spin being put on Berber versus Arab identity in the Maghreb is most certainly political POV and highly discussable from a factual POV. "Sensitivity" to Berberist feelings is not the purpose of NPOV policy. (collounsbury 19:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

You characterization of the passage is rather bizarre! How does your last edit differ in substance from what was said, or help remove the purported "spin" or the so-called "Berberist POV phrasing"?!! Zerida 21:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All in the phrasing mate, all in the phrasing. I was trying not to be anything more than an editor there. (collounsbury 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Requested move

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.

---

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)

• Support Makes sense to me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Its name is "North Africa". While that may not be the common form of name for a region, it isn't up to Wikipedia to change the language to be more regular. Instead, our job is to report usage, and not to be prescriptive. --Yath 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose For same reasons as Yath. Dbinder (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2006 (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.

June 2007 Edit Chaos

Can we please start to have a proper discussion with respect to edits? Mariam83: you need to stop ranting about "bias" and "fictionalization" and start discussing calmly with those watching these pages what you would like to change, where, and why. I frankly am not a fan of the text I have reverted back to. I even support some of your criticisms and changes. However, your wholesale blanking and changing to match your own idiosyncratic views (e.g re geography on North Africa, which while arguable do not match common English language usage - common usage may be "wrong" but that's not for you to change here), without regard to either English language usage or maintaining a non POV article. Your wild accusations re "ignorance", "bias," "fictionalizations" do to the mere fact of disagreement (in my instance largely disagreement over the manner in which you are making copy/paste edits and inserting highly POV opinions) indicate you have not grasped the rules here. Chill out and start discussing in good faith. collounsbury 10:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Edit chaos because at last someone has taken notice of the distortion of this articlee? You need to cite your sources, and why are you using a map of Central African nations on a page on North Africa? I request an edit lock, because you are obviously not being objective. Mariam83 11:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No edit chaos because you refuse to get the point that your own bloody point of view is not THE point of view. Listen, I have long not been happy with the particular content of these articles, however your bizarre personalization of the criticisms you are receiving on multiple edits across the board underlines the problem. The map is not MY MAP - get it through your bloody head. It is the consensus map, a consensus I had no part it. Whatever my opinions, your reverting and massive editing to your own idiosyncratic definition of North Africa, based on personal perceptions is POV and inappropriate. collounsbury 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

No, you are wrong. You keep reverting the Berber page, yet if you read the article, you will undoubtedly agree that the changes are perfectly reasonable. The version you are reverting to calls a study "debatable" because its findings differ from the first, which is listed first purposefully I presume. However, with my edits, that is, annotated evidence, they make perfect sense! You see, as the region is VAST, yes, more than again..twice as large as europe, the two studies as it turns out use different subjects. The first uses donors from the Western saharan and Morocco, the second from Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria. Don't forget that Libya alone is "Libya is a vast territory the size of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Belgium combined"[1]. You would not use a study of Greeks in an article about Scotland now would you? Don't you realize that the article's integrity is being jeopordized? This is not a personal matter. You have yourself said that you keep reverting not because of the content but because of my actions. However, my actions only seem insolent because I am being attacked by you two and keep reverting. I'm sorry if the truth clashes with your wishful thinking, but this is not the place for you to behave in a non-objective manner. Sadly, your understanding of wikipedia, Vanadalism, Wishful thinking etc., is erroneous. I am confident that I will prevail in the end. Mariam83 12:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good bloody lord. This is not a matter of prevailing. It is a matter of consensus editing, good form, and as well avoiding Point of View. Your behaviour is seriously out of line and your reaction here underlines that. I am not even against all of your edits in terms of content, but by style, poor writing, copyright violations, and frankly utter and absolute refusal to discuss in a rational manner. An article's "integrity" is not dependent on your personal interpretation. Nor mine. Now stop editing warring, accusing people of bad faith and generally bad behaviour, and start discussing like an adult. I am sure that a rational approach, carefully explained (without ridiculous diatribes about "fiction" etc) will win you some points in retaining some although not all of your edits. collounsbury 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Bloody hell, here you are again like a leeche! You are sprinkling me with roses :-) THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL MATTER NOR IS IT YOUR BEDROOM, IT IS A FREE I REPEAT FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA! The issues you keep alluding to in an attempt to disguise your real intentions should all the more guide you to make a greater effort to contribute to wikipedia in an impartial and benefician manner. You keep referring to my "personal interpretation" of the material, yet it is you rather than I that have rejected annotated evidence from the very sources the article cites. You keep reverting pages related to the region in a most distinctive way.I am afraid your actions betray a deeply ingrained prejudice toward truth and facts. Explain to me again what you find so objectionable in the Berber article? Do the number and origins of the donors bother you? This is the only amendment I have made. What is so subjective and irrational about annotated evidence? Answer this please. Mariam83 13:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lady, take a breath, step away and try to read this for comprehension. I have reverted your vandalism because you are indiscriminately editing across the board, mixing valid edits with copyright violation cut&paste, reverting despite multiple objections, etc. I see no point at present in discussing content with you, given first your use of an ethnic slur on my talk page, and your irrational responses to criticisms (as in "betray deeply ingrained prejudice"). collounsbury 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Listen pansy, your problem is that you are personalizing an impersonal affair. I do not give a rat's arse about you or your feelings. The content is what matters. Now take a hike, asswipe and before reprimanding me, learn to treat others civilly..tu n'es qu'un pauvre connard inculte, comme il y en a beaucoup trop. Et comme tu es inculte, tu comprends même pas ce que je te dis. Shut up and carry on reverting these pathetic pages! I AM NOT UP TO DISCUSSING ANYTHING WITH YOU ANYMORE, YOU FIGURE OF FUN! I pity you..you can only impose your pathetic flawed views online, connard de merde. Mariam83 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess this pretty much summarizes the degree to which you are engaging the editorial process. Not much more to say. collounsbury 13:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're unstoppable. Too bad you don't invest as much energy into correcting the content you find flawed. I seriously pity you. Mariam83 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Article seriously flawed

The problem with this article is that it confuses North Africa with Northern, or the recent political definitions, of Northern Africa. It also uses a political definition that is not properly sourced (UN map from where, used in which context?) to define a region culturally, historically etc. Generally, the entire article is terrible and seriously flawed, as seems to be the case with most articles on wikipedia pertaining to regions, countries etc. A rewrite is long overdue. Mariam83 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

Another map is in order. A UN "subregions" map is not appropriate. I wonder if UN subregion maps are used elsewhere on wikipedia, like for instance on articles pertaining to North America, where a map including Mexico and other Central american countries is used. Mariam83 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And relace it with what map? Your own? --Ezeu 20:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, a map of North Africa, and not Northern Africa, though I understand your frustration and inability to differentiate between the two as this article aims to blur the lines and does not distinguish between the two, intentionally I presume. I would urge you to use reputable sources that only scholars can edit, not an amateurish source such as this one. Mariam83 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Africa is Africa...whether Northern or which ever region. This topic is so sad and quite driven by a apparent need to make a seperation? Not sure what or how that benifits Africa, peoples or research in general. Much if not all of this discussion from many in the historical and anthropological communities are expriencing and motivated by "cognitive dissidence." It is so comical that people still are wanting to divide these peoples, each continent has it's influx and mixtures of peoples and cultures in those geographical areas that may be more exposed, have shared boundries, water ways or will be located sea side. Which would and does allow for mixture and cultural shifts. But this whole conversation I find sad and foolish, because largley much of this discussion is a more modern discussion. I mean Europe was not even developed, named or civilized for many centuries before some of these empires infuenced or had influx into Africa. This discussion is like eqauting Montana, Washington and Idaho states as being more Canadian or not really the US. Or Upper NY and Vermont as being heavily Toronto-ized in ethnicity. Please"....ha. Muslim and Arabic people groups are not only a political affiliation but often a cultural and/or used to make some religious identification. Arab or White' speak to largley a culture demarcations people want or need to do. My guess is that if you ask a Mexican who is part spanish if they are white they would not agree. Even though they may not claim indiginous aztec or inca (indian) status. Genitically there is one race the human race, a different "race" is not a diffirent being, species or genus. Africans are Africans...which are human and come in many shades. Boundries dont contain life or types. Yes peoples groups and intermingling have influenced regions of Africa. But are we drawing lines in the sand where we need to claim what areas are better or more advanced? The continent has so many countries and different value systems, focuses and cultural mores. Despite color or geography, what is so un comfortable to accept for people? Maybe if we stop drawing lines we can be open to learning and accepting we can learn from others in their greatness not minimize or marginalize some. But then many films and teaching images will then have to be changed....I equate this argument to making Jesus a non Jew. He was Jewish and yet people would have him look or elude to a lightness or washing of that simple reality both documented in political, jewish and religious documentation. Can we accept that Africa is varied and a mosaic much like the US, Latin America or Asia, Europe and even Russia (ever look at peoples in Siberia). Maybe for some is it hard to accept Africans are in various hues and shades. Despite wars, intermarraige, tribal subjegation and migration. The mere fact people must attempt to make racial and ethnic divisions is a testiment to the more personal nature and less scientific or political one. As far as genitic reality's it is very much agreed upon and proven the genitic make up of peoples from that region hold a singular or specific identifiers, regardless who or whom contributed to their family tree. My guess is that some in Northern Africa have perpetuated this mindset of being "seperated" or as being better than one region or more advanced than those in sub sahara Africa. Kind of like San Francisco thinking that LA is somehow less desirable or advanced in historical value. My city is better than your City. Kind of like the Mason Dixin line or North verses South, the people in the South are stupid...Basically that is the under current in this discussion. Be Honest'...all those who need to do this to other peoples. Many in my opinion have bought into this foolishness. Africa is Africa if you are white your white and European, but please dont claim that the greatness of Africa is predicated on the color of skin or the greatness of those whom in Caucasion or Western History deems great. Lest we forget that most if not all of those civilizations or empires were destroyed and not strong enough to survive. Largley many if not most are all gone" destroyed" and ended. The African peoples, culture and civilizations are still here. I suggest each person search their notion of reality vs racism, politics vs people, sociology vs anthropology. And lets not forget basic decency, empathy and maybe basic genetics. And Yes I have been to Africa and have many freinds who are nationals there in several countries within Africa. martin seattle

Absolute nonsense written by an amateur who, judging from your nonsense, knows absolutely nothing about this region, the Arab world and lacks common sense. Africa is the world's largest continent. There is no such thing as "Africans." In the Southern Mediterranean/North Africa, "African" means negroid or black. Black people are sub-saharan and are largely uncivilized and are known to be uncivilized. In civilized North Africa, black people were brought as slaves, much as elsewhere in the Arab or Roman world. The only black minority are descendants of slaves. North Africa has always been separated from black, sub-saharan African by the Sahara, which is a greater barrier than an ocean. But even if people want to dismiss this divide, they cannot dismiss fact and history. The fact is, North Africa is more than twice as large as Europe and as such, a separate region, which is why most North Africans, that is, non-subsaharan Africans, await a North African union with great anticipation, and not one that would include sub-saharan countries like mauritania. Sadly, the region is run by mony hungry dictators and represented by a schizophrenic that is known throughout the region as a madman, Gaddafi of Libya. Fortunately, his time is running out. I am sorry to inform you of this martin, but North Africa will NEVER be one with an alien sub-saharan region that is racially, culturally, historically, politically and economically apart. Sub-saharan Africans are as North African as they are European or Asian or even South American. The fact is, the younger generations will not accept Europe's demonic strategy of burdening the Southern mediterranean with the terrible human tragedy that is black africa, nor will black africa ever progress until it accepts it history, culture, identity and depends on itself and not alien cultures or peoples for approval and aid. Mariam83 08:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So you still can't contain your grotesque racism, eh? As for your claims regarding the black minority in North Africa - it's false. There is solid evidence of ancient "black" (at least skeletal remains conforming with non-'caucasoid' populations on the north edge of the Sahara. Your ranting on like this, including personal attacks that border on the irrational are sad. collounsbury 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry black guy, but black people have never existed in North Africa, they were brought as slaves. Which might explain why North Africa is dissimilar to sub-saharan BLACK Africa =) I don't expect you to comprehend this though..however, you will not be allowed to distort reality on wikipedia, as it aims to be "encylopedic." Using a UN strategic political map is odious, and this may be why it is not used in the Europe or Asia articles, as it would make no sense there. Just accept fact and move on. Mariam83 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)