Talk:Africa/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Credo Mutwa tells the True History of Africa - Part 1

Credo Mutwa tells the True History of Africa - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/v/bf0o4TkoObo&hl=en&fs=1"

PsychoBlaze (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. By the way, wkipedia is not about truth, but about what credible sources say the world is. And a youtube video saying ancient peoples and modern ruling elistes are descendent of a cross between humans and a reptilian extraterrestrial race that controls wordl history is hardly a credible source. The Ogre (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

History section

I note that the "To Do" bar repeatedly calls for summarizing the history section (per WP:SS) and pointing the reader to appropriate sub-articles for the details. I think this needs to be a priority. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Civilizations

Article is written in such a way as to suggest that Egypt influenced Ethiopia into becoming a Christian nation. Ethiopia became Christianized as a result of the Axumite king Ezana II being converted by Saint Frumentius circa 324 AD.

Xona K (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New satellite image showing N America and Asia to scale

I have added a new satellite image Image:Africa-asia-america-to-scale.jpg. The previous satellite image did not demonstrate the sheer enormity of Africa, into which you could fit the US & Canada several times over. I used NASA World Wind, which generates public domain images, to create a frieze which clearly shows Africa's huge size in comparison to these other familiar landmasses. Please feel free to reposition/resize the thumbnail to make the article layout flow better. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wot!! No geology??

The word is not even mentioned anywhere. Did some bureaucrat remove it, or was a section on something this important regarded as trite. Amazed.... Rotational (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think no bureaucrat did anything for it. I think it is a blatant neglect, that might be caused by the unpleasant message:

This article may be too long.

I specifically miss the word "Gondwana" in the Africa article, that is the supercontinent that broke up into Africa, South America, Antarctica and Australia. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This section needs work. I suggest looking at "The History of Africa" by Tulus Abuduan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulu212 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Physical Features

I have been to Africa and correct me if I'm wrong but I've noticed a few things. Most of Africa is a high plateau covered with deserts, lush rainforest and dry grasslands. It is crossed by rivers, which bring water to dry regions and provide communications. Although they lie on the Equator, the high peaks in the east and snow-capped all year! Africa has several Volcanoes, when I heard that I got a bit frightened. Little Miss Clever (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What country in Africa have you been to? you cant simple say I have been to africa and most of africa is high plateau, covered with lush rainforest, dry grasslands, rivers and volcaneos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.14.45 (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

2540&shc=0&font=3&size=112&color=102&x=-3&y=84" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="460" height="320" name="loader" align="middle" wmode="transparent" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" />
<anofollow" class="external free">http://www.satisfaction.com/graffiti-creator/">Graffiti Creator</a> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.96.65 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Lack of accuracy in the "Africa" Article.

{{editsemiprotected}}

The article about Africa has the following text, that is not accurate:

"Africa straddles the equator and encompasses numerous climate areas; it is the only continent to stretch from the northern temperate to southern temperate zones."

The American Continent also stretchs from the northern temperate to southern temperate zones.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimergonzalezh (talk • contribs) 15:94, 10 November, 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I believe you're talking about two continents. North America and South America are two different continents. --DA Skunk - (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some difference of opinion as to whether North America and South America are one or two separate continents. Most English language sources will describe them as two separate continents, whereas many Spanish language sources will call them one continent as "America". The user who posted this also changed the Americas article right after posting this to change the phrase "North and South American continents" to "regions". The continent article does go into detail about the different naming conventions, but the consensus was to describe the seven continents, conventionally named, as Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Kman543210 (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

please add IW link

[[wuu:非洲]]

lksdnf;laksd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.27.140 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

your'e wrong, all wrong!!! SHUT UP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.35.135 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Politics section

The politics section seems to be mostly about the African Union - rather like saying that politics in Europe is all about the EU (couldn't be further from the truth).

Also there's stuff in there which isn't about politics so much as economics.93.96.236.8 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New Colonial Map

I recolored the map of colonial Africa, to make it look nicer. Can I use it in this article? User:Linguist Writer MentalPatient (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's here: [1]

How many countries in Africa?

I note that the wikipedia article states that there are 53 countries - but if you count the countries it then lists, there are 54 listed. So how many are there, and what are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.115.114.85 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the disputed territory of Western Sahara isn't counted as a country here, hence the number 53, but it's still listed later in the article. I'll add a mention that Western Sahara isn't counted to the first paragraph to make this clearer. Mkaksone (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving and talk page cleanup

I have done the following:

• redirected Talk:Africa/to do here and removed the to-do template from the top of the page
• moved older content on this page to Talk:Africa/Archive 4
• gotten rid of the small parameter on the templates on the top and put the banners in a shell
• added a User:Miszabot opt-in, archiving sections on this page that are older than 3 months
• removed Template:Archive box, since by some magical process it is appearing at the bottom of Template:talkheader and is redundant

- BanyanTree 00:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion in Africa

the article says <<The World Book Encyclopedia has estimated that there are 150 million Muslims and 130 million Christians in Africa, while Encyclopedia Britannica estimates that approximately 46.5% of all Africans are Christian and another 40.5% are Muslim>>

how can the number of Muslims be larger, but the percentage of Christians is larger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.54.142 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On another issue: this is a small thing, but there's something misleading about the language here. When you say that 46% are Christian and 40% are Muslim and the rest follow indigenous religions, it sounds as if the whole continent has been converted by missionaries or something. But Jerusalem and Mecca are both just barely outside the arbitrary and imaginary line that separates Africa from other continents. People following an 'indigenous' religion may well have imported it from a further distance. Maybe someone has heard a way to put this that avoids confusing connotations? Wnt (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing the Table

The table could do with changing to tidy it up. Why can't we use the South American template? Smaller text will probably help to tidy it up a bit:

Country or territory with flag	Area (km²)(per sq mi)	Population (July 2007 est.)	Population density per km²	Capital
Argentina	2,766,890 km2 (1,068,302 sq mi)	40,677,348	14.3/km² (37/sq mi)	Buenos Aires
Bolivia	1,098,580 km2 (424,164 sq mi)	9,247,816	8.1/km² (21/sq mi)	La Paz, Sucre
Brazil	8,514,877 km2 (3,287,612 sq mi)	191,908,598	22.0/km² (57/sq mi)	Brasília
Chile	756,950 km2 (292,260 sq mi)	16,454,143	21.1/km² (54.6/sq mi)	Santiago
Colombia	1,138,910 km2 (439,736 sq mi)	45,013,674	37.7/km² (97.6/sq mi)	Bogotá
Ecuador	283,560 km2 (109,483 sq mi)	13,927,650	47.1/km² (122/sq mi)	Quito
Falkland Islands (UK)	12,173 km2 (4,700 sq mi)	2,967	0.24/km² (0.6/sq mi)	Stanley
French Guiana (France)	91,000 km2 (35,135 sq mi)	221,450 (Jan. 2008)	2.7/km² (5.4/sq mi)	Cayenne
Guyana	214,970 km2 (83,000 sq mi)	770,794	3.6/km² (9.3/sq mi)	Georgetown
Paraguay	406,750 km2 (157,047 sq mi)	6,347,884	15.6/km² (40.4/sq mi)	Asunción
Peru	1,285,220 km2 (496,226 sq mi)	28,220,764	21.7/km² (56.2/sq mi)	Lima
South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (UK)	3,093 km2 (1,194 sq mi)	20	0/km² (0/sq mi)	Grytviken
Suriname	163,270 km2 (63,039 sq mi)	438,144	2.7/km² (7/sq mi)	Paramaribo
Uruguay	176,220 km2 (68,039 sq mi)	3,477,778	19.4/km² (50.2/sq mi)	Montevideo
Venezuela	912,050 km2 (352,144 sq mi)	26,414,815	27.8/km² (72/sq mi)	Caracas
Total	17,824,513	382,426,313	21.5/km²

Nightmayor (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Africa is not poor —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalvinChenng (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Africa

Although it has abundant natural resources, Africa remains the world's poorest and most underdeveloped continent, due to a variety of causes that may include the spread of deadly diseases and viruses (notably HIV/AIDS and malaria), corrupt governments that have often committed serious human rights violations, failed central planning, high levels of illiteracy, lack of access to foreign capital, and frequent tribal and military conflict (ranging from guerrilla warfare to genocide).[50] According to the United Nations' Human Development Report in 2003, the bottom 25 ranked nations (151st to 175th) were all African.[51]

This may all be true but it is because of white supremacy and imperialism, not due to any inferiority of Africans. It is stated as if these things just happened without a cause. This should be reworded to elucidate cause and effect.

Nfamous (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)nfamous

I agree. US & UK still can't believe their multinational corporations cause world poverty. Stars4change (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling mistake: It's for its

Where it says "The Nri kingdom is famous for it's elaborate bronzes, found at the town of Igbo Ukwu."

It should say:

"The Nri kingdom is famous for its elaborate bronzes, found at the town of Igbo Ukwu."

200.112.136.137 (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Playpump Intl

Could we add a link to Roundabout PlayPump because they desperately need water & playthings for children, & it might get some rich people or corporations to buy & donate some to poor nations: http://www.playpumps.org/site/c.hqLNIXOEKrF/b.2559311/k.7BCB/Playpumps_International_and_the_PlayPump_water_system_Kids_play_Water_Pumps.htm Stars4change (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And also add a link to Plumpy'nut for famine relief to save lives?Stars4change (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Maps for continents - proposal

Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:

• Europe (current)
• Asia (former)
• South America (current)

I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:

• It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
• New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
• As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.

Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)

Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.

This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Requests submitted. I'd like to reiterate that I have no intention of enforcing these new maps on articles - if there is any objection I'll understand. My intent here is to make uniformity possible, not to enforce it. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DEPENDENCIES!!!!!

The Western Sahara is a spanish dependencie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.167.207 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion:

In the info box on the top right of the article it says:

Population: ####

Density: ###

Shouldn't it be like the Europe article where it says "Pop. Density", not just "Density" ?

Sorry if I'm being anal =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obhave (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It would also be nice if you included the names of some of the Jungles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcouz (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tthis entry is pretty much misleading.

Africa actually means "Land to the South-West."

This is based upon the Original Latin "AFRICUS," which means South West wind and is the name of a Roman god.

Africa is the feminine of Africus. Note that in Latin, feminine word forms replace the "us" with an "a."

How do we know the word Africus was not based on a tribe the Romans conquered?

Well, it turns out that the Romans deified (regarded as gods) natural things like weather, ending up with a large number of gods. Some of these gods were classified as newcomer gods (when the Romans adopted them from others), and some were considered native (indigenous [di indigetes]) to the Romans and Greeks. Africus is "di indigetes."

In other words: Africus is a purely ARYAN/ROMAN word.

Africa was the name given by the Romans to at first a small coastal strip of land they'd grabbed during the Punic Wars. It was named thus because it lay over the sea from Rome in a South West direction.

In time the Romans conquered all the nations surrounding Africa, and the whole region became known as Africa.

Now, you may think this is inconsequential (doesn't matter), but you'd be wrong.

The Black nations surrounding Roman "Africa Territory" seventeen centuries ago (including Egypt) had-- earlier --all been forced to flee from their original homelands, forced by the Greeks/Romans.

In other words: the people who came to be known as Africans are refugees and migrants. African is not their proper name and Africa is not their original home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.229.226 (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The South West wind was named "Africus" because it came from the direction of Africa, not the other way around. The root "Afr" is clearly not "original Latin", since it only appears in four or five words in the whole Latin language, all of them related to the actual land of Africa. "Africus" and "Africa" are merely Latinized forms of a name that came from somewhere else. Also, it can't be an "aryan/roman word" because "Aryan" and "Roman" are entirely different things.

Finally, we're not living in the Roman empire and we don't use ancient Roman geography anymore. The whole continent is called Africa nowadays, so anyone born in it is an Afican by definition.Itzcuintli (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, Itzcuintli, and I see a lot of assertions being made by the anon above, but not a single appeal to any verifiable, reliable source. Therefore I can only wonder how much of it consists of his own original research. What the heck is "Aryan Roman" anyway? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

46 or 53? This makes no sense as currently written.

The text read:

"There are 46 countries including Madagascar, and 53 including all the island groups."

This seems devoid of meaning. It's like saying "the human body has nine fingers including the left thumb, ten including all the thumbs." I will edit it to "There are 53 countries, including Madagascar and all the island groups." zadignose (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read something more similar to "There are 45 countries in continental africa, and 8 nations among the island groups". (I don't think that's a very good wording either, I'm just trying to suggest you keep the distinction in some way.) 24.21.30.144 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The population is now over 1 billion

Source: [2] - Jørgen88 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2009 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

202.92.40.8 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 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)

Etymology: Goddess Ifri or Africa

Among the Ifran, animism was the principal spiritual philosophy and the inspiration of this major tribe of the Zenata Berbers. Ifri was also the name of a Berber deity, and their name may have origin in their beliefs. [3]

[4] the Plural of Ifri is Ifran. [5]

The Latin translation or borrowing of this deity formed the name Africa. Africa was a Berber goddess before the Roman conquest. Dea Africa means goddess Africa and represents a symbol to the Roman era.

And since Ifri is the Afers, the designation for the local non-Punic populations of North Africa, it also implies a different belief system than that of the Carthaginians. Ifru rites symbolized in caves were held to gain favour or protection for merchants and traders. There is a cave representing this rite near Guechguech and Constantine, Algeria. The myth of this protection is befittingly depicted on Roman coins. [6] Wendyflow (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

sports

africa's sports the best one is soccer the 2010 world cup will be held in south africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.237.17.15 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Improvements

[POV concern withdrawn... apologies - I thought it was the older version.]ScottPAnderson (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

6. Article has very obvious derogatory and racist views about Africa and Africans.
Please discuss.
ScottPAnderson (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out the "very obvious" derogatory and racist views?--TM 19:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay... 1. Etymology: The "afri" theory (with derogatory connotations of cave dweller / dust and convenienctly citing a Eurocentric book authored during the peak of colonialism/racism hehe), takes undue prominence over earlier theories by historians, which were more credible, less politically motivated and more widely used. Not to mention that the greek version more closely and more convincingly explains the name "Africa".

I propose that the main etymology be the earliest recorded one: "the Greek word aphrike (Αφρική), meaning "without cold." This was proposed by historian Leo Africanus (1488–1554), who suggested the Greek word phrike (φρίκη, meaning "cold and horror"), combined with the privative prefix "a-", thus indicating a land free of cold and horror.".

Otherwise we would be stuck with debates based on unconscious prejudicial viewpoints.

2. Culture of Africa:

a. Propose deletion: The caption of the "Kikuyu woman" picture is completely out of context. The reason behind the facepaint needs to be inserted - otherwise the misleading picture should be removed. It obviously suggests that Kikuyu women aspire to look like Europeans.

b.Propose deletion: "In recent years, traditional African culture has become synonymous with rural poverty and subsistence farming." (Yikes!)

3. Economy take Eurocentric (materialistic) view of Measuring value: As thambo Mbeki (among others) put it: "For some time Africa has been referred to as a "developing continent", and Britain and America as "developed countries." This is, of course, reducing the term "development" to a purely financial or economic meaning, a form of reductionism that implies that only the material things of life matter. If Britain is a "developed" country, and Africa aspires to be like Britain, does this mean that Africa wishes to mimic Britain on issues like child abuse, divorce rates and treatment of the elderly? The great arrogance of the West is exemplified and explicit in its reference to low-income countries as "less-developed countries." A much more satisfying terminology would be a reference to "low-income" countries and "high-income" countries", omitting a reference to development altogether."

African economy may be least developed from western perspective - but Africans see the concept of economy differently! In the west, it is about status and accumulating wealth (material driven). In Africa it is mostly about sharing and improving community well being (social-values driven). It is like comparing apples to tomatoes using the same yardstick simply because they are fruits - then declaring the tomato better because it has more seeds (i.e. number of seeds becomes the yardstick).

Thus the statement "africa is least developed" should read, In "Based on the western economic measurement criteria, Africa is the least developed continent. However most Africans do not share Western beliefs about the value of wealth accumulation." (I can cite several sources). "From an African perspective, the African economy is the most advanced in the world because it goes beyond simple arithmetic of notes, coins and gadgetism, into genuinely and holistically uplifting the quality human lives. Value systems such as Ethics / Morality / Kindness / Arts / Family values / Integrity etc, while separate from the Economy in Eurocentric cultures, are very much integrated into African Economy." Western economic ideas fail in Africa because *value systems* are different! (i can cite several sources) A culturally neutral article would highlight this. Thus Current article is skewed.

Overall its a good article and very well done. Sorry for the initial harsh criticism. ScottPAnderson (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved from top of page. I've removed the level-1 headers, as well. TFOWR^propaganda 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

Reader, John (1998), Africa: A Biography of the Continent, New York: Knopf. ISBN 0679409793 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giuseppe Fusco (talk • contribs) 13:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Geography— Biomes of Africa

The image File:Vegetation Africa.png states ""see world vegetation map for key", where world vegetation map is a link to File:Vegetation.png. Can we do something better here? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

somaliland

i somalilander i want to discus the recudation of somaliland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.189.229.171 (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Recudation? (that's not an english word) — kwami (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

somaliland

British Somaliland Main article: British Somaliland The British Somaliland protectorate was initially ruled from British India (though later on by the Foreign Office and Colonial Office, and was to play the role of increasing the British Empire's control of the vital Bab-el-Mandeb strait which provided security to the Suez Canal and safety for the Empire's vital naval routes through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Resentment against the British authorities grew: Britain was seen as excessively profiting from the thriving coastal trading and farming occurring in the territory. A full-blown guerrilla war had begun by 1899 under the leadership of religious scholar Mohammed Abdullah Hassan. By 1920, with the help of aerial support from the British Royal Air Force, the situation in Somaliland had stabilised and the British had re-established their dominance over the territory. Sporadic uprisings were to occur for decades afterwards, however on a much reduced scale with improved British infrastructural spending and a more benign, less paternalistic set of public policy.

The Italian invasion of British Somaliland in August 1940During the East African Campaign of WWII, the protectorate was occupied by Italy in August 1940, but recaptured by the British in summer 1941. Some Italian guerrilla fighting (Amedeo Guillet) lasted until 1942.

The conquest of British Somaliland was Italy's only victory (without the cooperation of German troops) in WWII against the Allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.189.229.171 (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Economy

Surely if you are a subsistence farmer and are able to feed yourself without making any money that shouldn't necessarily mean you are poor - i.e., if I have a small farm where I grow my fruit, vegetables and maize, I have a few cows and I am able to provide for my family enough to survive that shouldn't mean I should be classified as poor just because I don't earn any money. You don't all the things that the West propagates to survive properly - for example I don't need a TV, I don't need to eat 3 meals a day when one or two are enough, not necessary to have vitamin tablets etc. Sure we may be poorer but not absolutely poor just because we live on 0 dollars a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.89.63 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Article for footnote 61 has moved, but I do not have access to edit. Permalink is at http://go.worldbank.org/5V41Z1WRL0 --99.246.180.189 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Africa|p00545ld}}. Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

african holidays or celebration

The important holidays or celebrations they celabrate all over africa are amazing.Some great celebratons they have in africa are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.177.250 (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Languages

Although Afrikaans does trace its origins back to mostly European languages, that being predominantly Dutch along with German, Portuguese and English, as well as a small influence of Malay and certain characteristics of other "local" or "bantu" languages, Afrikaans is considered an African language, as it originated in Africa (South Africa). Afrikaans is one of the 11 official languages of South Africa and is spoken by both the white minority as well as the black and coloured majority population of that country as well as in Namibia. Afrikaans is considered to be the youngest language.--Cybo73 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

African democratic countries

Freedom house [7]:

• Benin (Center) - French
• Botswana (South)
• Ghana (Center)
• Mali (Northafrican country) - speak French
• Mauritius (South)
• Namibia (South)
• South Africa
• In transition:
  • Tunisia
  • Egypt

--147.84.132.44 ([[User talk:147.84.132.44|full of nigers147.84.132.44 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Sahara was a valley?

I cannot conceive how the follow line could be considered accurate: "...the Sahara had again become a green fertile valley..."

perhaps it should read: "...the Sahara had again become a green fertile region..."

68.149.83.42 (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Analyzer99 & the etymology section

Even though the burden is on User:Analyzer99 to use this discussion page to justify exactly why he thinks his version of the etymology section is superior to the multi-editor consensus version, he steadfastly refuses to do so, and acts like a simple revert-machine, reverting again and again to his version without any discussion at all. This is against policy and quite frustrating. I see also that he has a long history of such behavior, and being blocked for it, from which he has apparently drawn no lessons in how to edit here. It's not up to me or other editors who prefer the existing status quo, to come here and initiate discussion inquiring what your reasons are for mangling the list of hypotheses again and again, but here I am in your absence, doing just that. Is '99 your year of birth or something? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Good job in the fix up - 99 has been blocked so i dont think It will be a problem again for some time.Moxy (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Replace citation needed tags with proper reliable source, not with personal theory

After undoing citation needed tags for no reason, the editor finally decided to change the article, but instead of finding proper reliable sources about the romance suffix -ca, he has removed the citation needed tags altogether, and instead of citing new reliable sources, he has now decided to turn around and create his own little etymological theory about the suffix "-ica" instead of "-ca" (as it was previously written) or "-ia" (as is more common in Romance languages).Analyzer99 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Territories and regions table

The table under the section Territories and regions is currently a regular table. However, I think it should be made into a sortable table so the populations, densities, etc. of various countries can be compared. I want to make sure other people support the idea of making it into a wikitable sortable before I make any changes. —Reelcheeper (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

SOuth SUdan is still missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.10.201 (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

New map needed

A new map is needed in this article to show the newly formed Republic of South Sudan.97.117.168.153 (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The map that User:WeiszGypsy305 uploaded works as a placeholder, but it would be nice to have an .SVG with more accurate lines for South Sudan. Unfortunately I don't have image-editing software that can manipulate the file format. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Also this section in the intro needs to be updated: The continent has 54 sovereign states. There are now 55. 80.254.147.36 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes definitely a new map is needed because South Sudan is now independent.Wikisupporting (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Update needed in Territories and regions table re: Sudan - South Sudan

In the same vein as above -^, the numbers in the Territories and regions table for Sudan includes South Sudan territory and population. Just FYI and a heads up. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Under lists of territories on this article, Sudan was REPLACED by South Sudan. How did this happen? Sudan is still a country. Just because South Sudan broke away and got independence, doesn't mean the rest of Sudan disappeared off the face of the earth. The country of Sudan (capital Khartoum) still exists and needs to be edited BACK IN to this article. I don't know why someone just replaced it with South Sudan. Should I edit this or could you? 66.68.99.162 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"66.68.99.162": Sudan is under Northern Africa in the Territories and regions table. South Sudan is under Eastern Africa. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

List of dependences

Please, you must change the paragraph into the box of the dependences. Canaries, ceuta, Melilla, Madeira and Reunion are not dependences, are a part of State. They are not colonies.

Saint Hellene if it is a dependence.

Sorry for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.157.45.75 (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dependencies and territories

Why are the Spanish and Portuguese territories in Northern Africa separated from the Northern Africa list while other dependencies and territories of non-African states are integrated into their regional lists? I would change it but 1) I'm not sure whether I should sort the Span./Port. terr. into the N Af. list or sort out the other dependencies and territories from their regional lists and 2) I am not very good at editing this style of table. Does anyone know which way it should be done? Comments appreciated. --Khajidha (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edited them in.--Khajidha (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Political Map - Difficult to Use

Not sure if this is an issue for everyone, but I find that when I move the pointer over each country, the wrong name comes up (e.g. "Eritrea" in Sudan, or "Indian Ocean" in Madagascar). I don't know if / how this can be fixed, but I hope it is useful to flag up the issue - I hope someone with the technical competence may be able to mend it. Thanks. Crinoline (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Coltan statement. Edit request from Jwilliams1117, 15 September 2011

Located in the "Economy" Section

"and most mobile phones in the world have coltan in them." is misleading/not true.

Please replace with

"and most mobile phones are made with elements refined from coltan."

or

"coltan contains elements widely used in mobile phones."

--Joshua Williams (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.233.229.98, 22 September 2011

There's a missing space between the first and second words of the article (Africais).

98.233.229.98 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed under Climate Section

I'm not a usual editor of Wikipedia, and can't figure out how to edit this article - although other articles I can edit.

Maybe someone can do it for me.

The citation needed under climate section...

it states the highest recorded temperature on earth was in libya in 1992 - not sure if my source is inaccurate, but I see that it was in libya in 1922 and here's the source... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youcanneverbetoosmart (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

The "Territories and regions" cites Zimbabwe to be part of the Southern Africa, but the attached map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Africa-regions.png) renders it in the Eastern Africa group. This inconsistency have to be solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micron rt (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Africa is the most continental country I know. Well, besides Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newt Toad (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please fix - Africa is the third largest continent not the second

Please note that I'm getting my facts from other Wikipedia pages.

"Africa is the world's second largest and second most populous continent, after Asia. At about 30.2 million km² (11.7 million sq mi)"

" The Americas cover 8.3% of the Earth's total surface area (28.4% of its land area)", 42,549,000 km²

"Asia is the world's largest and most populous continent, located primarily in the eastern and northern hemispheres. It covers 8.7% of the Earth's total surface area (or 30% of its land area)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.226.2.85 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You will notice that the material you quoted refers to "Americas" (plural), as in counting North and South America as two continents. This is the most common usage in English, in other languages (notably Spanish) the two are considered one continent. As this is the English Wikipedia, the default assumption is that N & S America are two continents and the statement that Africa is the second largest continent is correct. --Khajidha (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

what year was africa made a country?

i am a 5th grade kid, and i need to knmow now!! so tell me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.239.154 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Africa has never yet been made into a "country" as we know it. It is the name of a continent that includes over 50 different countries. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Christianity reached East Africa far before the 6th Century

"Christianity spread across these areas from Palestine via Egypt, also passing south, beyond the borders of the Roman world into Nubia and by at least the 6th century into Ethiopia." - What is this rubbish? East Africa, in particular modern-day Eritrea and Ethiopia, were fully Christian by the end of the 3rd Century A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.6.6 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. The apparent ignorance some people have about this never ceases to amaze me. Nobody denies that it became the state religion of Aksum by 340 AD at the latest, and tradition also holds that the doctrine of Christianity first entered the region with the official baptised by Philip according to the book of Acts. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

So, has this been fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.235.211 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

"forreign" should be corrected to "foreign"

174.52.2.127 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

NOW YOU CAN ADD STUFF TO WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.40 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dependences

Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary islands are not dependences. They are territories of the Spanish State. It must be withdrawn of the list of dependences of the infobox.2.140.210.44 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Carthage

Under Roman rule, Carthage became the capital of Africa Province, but during times of peace, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם is the capital of Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.128.87 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We can't exactly write that in the wp article now though, can we...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus

Geographically,Cyprus is in Africa,isn't it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.121.13 (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's geographically located in Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rail88 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its an island in the mediterranean.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Due weight

Til Eulenspiegel complained about due weight. But WP:DUE states that content should be published by reliable sources. I have rprovided reliable sources so i dont see what the issue is. Furthermore, i cut the sentence about LGBT by around two thirds, so if any "undue" problem existed initially, it no longer does. Pass a Method talk 16:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please demonstrate why the status of homosexuals in Africa is significant enough for mention in the Lead section. There are many times more Rastafarians living in Africa than homosexuals, yet we do not mention them in the lead. This is not of monumental significance to the topic of Africa, hence it is undue for the lead. Also you might want to familiarize yourself with WP:BRD before leaving messages on my personal talkpage threatening me with a block for reverting your recent unilateral addition to the lead. In addition, you reinstated the contested material you added with the fraudulent edit summary "per compromise" when the truth is, so far there has been no "compromise" whatsoever that I am aware of. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, we should give an overview of the article content in the lede. I only added one sentence. If i added three or four sentences i would be able to see your point about undue, but i did not. Also, same-sex marriage is not only performed by homosexuals; it can also be done by bisexuals, transgenders, questioning and bi-curious people. The definition of compromise is "making a concession". I tried to make a concession to your opinion by significantly cutting the lede. Hence a compromise Pass a Method talk 17:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How interesting, but I disagree that it rises to the level of importance or significance for inclusion in the lead. There are many other facts about many far larger minorities in Africa mentioned in the body of the article, but we don't give them special treatment by summarizing them in the lead. The lead should only be for facts that are of major significance to the article topic. As for compromise, if you look up the English definition, the word implies that an agreement has been reached. You have acted without consensus based perhaps on your personal point of view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• This article is about a continent. Individual pieces of legislation of any particular country in that continent is probably irreelevant for the article as a whole and definitely irrelevant for the Lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

The Europe article also discusses the largest country by size and population. Why dont you delete that too? Pass a Method talk 23:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It was written in a way that made it seem relevant in the Europe page, but I've boldly removed it there as you suggested. CMD (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate pls? Pass a Method talk 00:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't simply thrown in as disjointed sentences. It also has context in that it points out that almost half of the continent is within a single country, which is quite impressive. CMD (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that if i re-add it in a contextual/jointed way you'd be fine with it? Pass a Method talk 01:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. I don't think it should be added for the sake of adding it. If readers want to know that sort of information, they can look at the Territories and regions section. CMD (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Offer

If you fancy any videos from [8] let me know and I will arrange for them to be released under an appropriate licence. It is a tedious faff releasing videos into the Wikipedia project and there are many many hundreds so it would have to be a specific request I don't have time to do them all. --BozMo talk 08:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition Africa

Why does not the Arab subcontinent belong to Africa ?

Geological and Geomorphological these parts of the earth belong to each other!

So, political or ethnical affairs do not matter at all.

Neither you would count French Guyana to Europe (just politically). Australia is also not a part of Europe, despite of it European population (just of the socalled West). And India is itself a (formerly african) subcontinent, which is put to Asia. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.60.237 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

At wikipedia, we pretty much stick with the 'orthodox' definitions of the continents as found in the preponderance of reliable sources. Other, 'non-orthodox' definitions, which yours evidently is, might feasibly be mentioned in the appropriate place, but as a bare minimum we would need some kind of external source explaining WHO defines it that way, and demonstrating WHY it would be a significant point of view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The last line in the economic section

The line "A Harvard University study showed that Africa could easily feed itself, if only it had decent governance." doesn't seem very encyclopedic (due to the use of the words decent, which shows bias; and showed, one study doesn't prove anything), and insults the intelligence of the reader. Every continent capable of sustaining it's population can feed itself, and if it can't, then the population drops until it can. I would either remove or change it myself, but it's locked, probably because of edit wars over something stupid, like ethnic and religious tensions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.168.53 (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I read the article and made a small change to make it sound less biased. I hope my changes pass muster.Mylittlezach (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding an interactive Africa map to the article

For editors: Any interest in adding the interactive AfricaMap site, Africamap ( http://worldmap.harvard.edu/africamap/) to this article? It is open to everyone and has a wealth of data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond9 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Independence struggles

Can, in the Independence struggles section, be mentioned that at the founding of the Organisation for African Unity, it was thought by many that the organisation would redraw the country borders in africa. Wole Soyinka even wrote an article about it in Courrier International (nr 188), at 9 June 1994.

Next, can a map be added of 1500-1800 AD; this seems to be most representable. A map of the african borders/states of 1800-1880 AD may also be added; these include states like Karamanu dynasty, cult of Sanoessijja, Masina, Bambara, Bondou, Futa Jallon, Futa Toro, Ashanti, Mossi Dagomba states, Haussaland, Fulani Kingdom, Kanem-Bornu, Dahomey, Fanti, Boeganda, Nyamwezi, Domain of Tippu-Tip, Lunda, Luba, Imbangala, Ovimbundu, Kazembe, Swazi, Natal, Sotho, Kingdom of Merina and Kingdom of Betsileo KVDP (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Map showing religious distribution in Africa incorrect

This map puts Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia as Islam. However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Eritrea 63% of Eritreans are Christians According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Ethiopia 96% of Tigrayans which is Northern Ethiopia are Christians Also Northern western Ethiopia and Central Ethiopia where Amhara live are 83% Christians Please correct the map for these areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.147.232 (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Bright Continent

The section #Economy doesn't address the recent grassroots developments in Africa, points made in Dayo Olopade's book. It just mentions the poverty which according to the author is a misconception of industrialized nations. 68.173.0.226 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

africa the second largest continent???

Hi there, africa is not the second largest continet, just the third after asia and america (despite it can be divided in two subcontinents they are part of a big one, this is indeniable) I hope someone can fix this mistake, thank you.

More than can be, America is traditionally subdivided into North America and South America. If you want to argue by using geological considerations, than you are correct, but you must then also accept that Africa is joined at Suez to Asia and is therefore not a continent at all and instead just part of the much larger Afro-Eurasia. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 05:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Africa

Bukyrrocro, could you please just go to the talk page instead of reverting without reason? AcidSnow (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sports Section on South Africa

Please mention that South Africa won the Rugby world cup on 1995 and 2007, there is a picture of Namibia team on there but no mention that South Africa took the cup twice. Also South Africa is ranked first for the ICC test cricket ranking currently and 4th for 20/20 cricket by ICC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FroggyFroneman (talk • contribs) 10:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Should it not be considered imperious

….for an article on Africa to be locked? And when it opens with an apparently unsourced line? Please add the following tag to the first sentence:

Change from:

   Africa is the world's second-largest and second-most-populous continent. 

Change to:

   Africa is the world's second-largest and second-most-populous continent.

Alternatively, add the content of this lede-opening sentence somewhere in the body of the text, with a citation for the non-common knowledge, factual information it contains, and then clarify (answer the question begged), "second in each case to which other continent or continents?" If these two glaring errors are addressed, there is no need to introduce these inline tags.

71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

On the lead and the changes that needs to be done on it

I have unsuccessfully tried to reform the lead section of this article [9][10]. The aims of my edits were to give a more complete overview of what Africa actually is and what is to be found there. The present version has three paragraphs: first one on geography and extent, the second one stating population is young and a third one about human origins in Africa plus a short sentence on climate.

This not good enough for such important article. I find the human/hominid origin and evolution section too long and the "young continent" paragraph out of context. Additionally Nigeria and Algeria get a special mention becuase of being the most populous and largest countries. I disagree with that special mention since there are plenty of general aspects that are more important to include in the lead (see following). What I propose is:

1. Removal of young continent sentence (unless it is put in a broader context). It does not matter if its sourced or not. The lead needs flow and coherence.
2. Removal of special mention of Nigeria and Algeria. Land area and population in Africa is not enough concentrated in those countries to give them a special mention (compare with Brazil in south America that has about half of the population and land area of the continent).
3. Shortening of human/hominid origin and evolution. One or two sentences are enough.
4. Addition of the general human aspects of the continent including: explaining the human groups and cultures present. I infer some editors are not happy with the use of "Sub-Saharan" this terminology can be avoided. We need to state both the diversity and the unifying features of Africa.
5. Addition of key historical events. I guess Bantu expansion, Arabization, Islamization, Colonialism and Decolonization are all candidates to help give a minimum of historical context.
6. I also consider adding something about the international image and stereotypes of Africa to explain its "savage", "exotic", "poor", "primitive" and "undeveloped" image across the globe.

Please comment this proposal (I have previously helped shape the leads of Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and South America so that you can see what I consider better leads than this). Dentren | ^Talk 20:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• My stance is this; you shouldn't delete a content because YOU term it as "irrelevant". Wikipedia isn't here for what only one person thinks. Atleast the person who added it must have considered it relevant before adding it, and I also consider such mentions relevant in the lead. The least you can do is copyedit such sentences to look more presentable, if you think they are badly phrased. Then again, as you said, you wanted to add "stereotypes"....that's unacceptable! well, except you can prove that it is factual! which means, citing reliable sources to prove such stereotypes.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• A) Personal judgement is completely valid. Just as some people add because THEY deem relevant some may remove because of irrelevancy. I want changes to last therefore I'm trying to engage people here in inteligent discussion.

• B) Unfortunately, and if you are African youself you may recognize this, Africa is known for a series associations that may include stereotypes. It is completely acceptable to discuss stereotypes in the lead if they are relevant enough. To make the point I cite articles like Stereotypes of Jews. That discuss stereotypes without necessarily validating them. Dentren | ^Talk 00:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• A) You'd need to have a strong case other than "irrelevant" inorder to remove an appropriate, and sourced contribution...just the same way, It wouldn't be right for me to delete any of your contributions I termed "irrelevant", despite being sourced and very appropriate.

B) Then you can easily create an article for African stereotypes as well; stereotypes are not meant to be included in the leads of main articles of any subject. They can be somehow included in the body; but then again, you'd have to prove the stereotypes are significant and notable enough to be included.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014

its some information that needs corrected and I will like to help by fixing

96.4.179.130 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Sure, what is it? AcidSnow (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that this page is viable to be compared to all of Africa's glory as a continent, and it is for this reason I move it be examined by a Doctor or Master of African Studies. I am by no means a doctor or a master in African studies, meaning I hold no degrees, but I have devoted most of my life to African study and may make suggestions as time proceeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran P. Clark (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Kieran P. Clark (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out in the map of colonialism, Ethiopia is falsely represented. Ethiopia did in fact have a brief colonial period in which the Italians held Ethiopia for a brief time. Also, Cameroon was not solely German. There were also influences from the French and the English, hence the modern language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran P. Clark (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Kieran P. Clark (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, Kiswahili, as much as I would like to say it is indigenous, is technically not. Swahili, which emerged from the Swahili city-states, in in fact a mix of Bantu, Arabic, Omani dialects, and colonial European languages. However, you would be correct in saying it is the lingua franca of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and other parts of East Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran P. Clark (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Kieran P. Clark (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Addis Abeba be included in the largest cities list?

If the largest cities category criteria is population, then forget my request ; but I am going to assume it's not since Mogadishu is included (1.5 million < 3 - 5 million). Addis is the current seat of the African Union HQ and I think that matters or should be enough to get it featured into this category.

Thank you :)

197.156.102.7 (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see List of metropolitan areas in Africa. Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Africa er sexy :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.72.212 (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Africa er den nest største verdendelen Ebola kommer derfra og det gjør celine ,ssander,josof,mathilde,Sami kommer derifra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.72.212 (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

Hey guys, I think the population density of 30.51 got way outdated by now. 1.1 billion/30,221,532 = 36.3979 ~~ 36.4, instead of 30.51. I unfortunately do not count as established Wikipedia editor, so could someone update this bit? Thanks! Brezniczky (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Done It was last updated in 2008. Stickee (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Modern political Map

Shouldn't this article have one with a place to click on each of the country names, into their articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.104.76 (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

I like the love of Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.156.86.193 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Out of Africa II Dates

I fixed the Out of Africa link that was incorrectly referencing the book, which has nothing to do with the actual Out of Africa II migration, but I also noticed that the dates listed in this article don't match the article on the migration. Maybe someone could figure out which are the correct dates and edit the corresponding article.

Also, the latter article mixes British (kilometres) and American (colonized) spelling, which probably shouldn't be mixed but don't know which is standard. Maybe there is someone out there that specializes in this like the person that feels he must change every instance of "comprised of" to "composed of."

Voyager62 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

africa

Africa is the world's second-largest and second-most-populous continent. At about 30.2 million km2 (11.7 million sq mi) including adjacent islands, it covers six percent of Earth's total surface area and 20.4 percent of its total land area.[2] With 1.1 billion people as of 2013, it accounts for about 15% of the world's human population.[3] The continent is surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea to the north, both the Suez Canal and the Red Sea along the Sinai Peninsula to the northeast, the Indian Ocean to the southeast, and the Atlantic Ocean to the west. The continent includes Madagascar and various archipelagos. It has 54 fully recognized sovereign states (or countries), nine territories and two de facto independent states with limited or no recognition.[4]

Africa's population is the youngest among all the continents; 50% of Africans are 19 years old or younger.[5] Algeria is Africa's largest country by area, and Nigeria by population. Africa, particularly central Eastern Africa, is widely accepted as the place of origin of humans and the Hominidae clade (great apes), as evidenced by the discovery of the earliest hominids and their ancestors, as well as later ones that have been dated to around seven million years ago, including Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Australopithecus africanus, A. afarensis, Homo erectus, H. habilis and H. ergaster – with the earliest Homo sapiens (modern human) found in Ethiopia being dated to circa 200,000 years ago.[6] Africa straddles the equator and encompasses numerous climate areas; it is the only continent to stretch from the northern temperate to southern temperate zones.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.209.67 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015

Change all dates stating "BC" to "BP" — Before Present. Axl.mattheus (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done this would not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers - Arjayay (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It would actually make sense to do some of them, and it wouldn't be in conflict with the MOS. This for instance: "1.9 million–600,000 years BC" is just plain daft and should be BP instead of BC. 31.52.163.247 (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this still does not comply with the MOS. Specifically, it states, a safer and simpler alternative may be to use ya (years ago) versus using BP. This actually matches the referenced article Recent African origin of modern humans for that section. However, while years ago may be an acceptable substitute for those dates, a consensus still has to be reached. Please create a new section in this talk page for that discussion versus the edit request. Thanks. Inomyabcs (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

References

South Africa has a Economic System — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.23.131 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Spam

This article is full of spam from someone who intents to promote his website AfricaEngager.com. It needs to be removed. Sadly,I have just registered to do it and didn't know it was protected. --Budmad (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Budmad: do you mean the recent edits about diasporanews.com? They have been undone. I haven't seen anything about "Africa Engager" or "AfricaEngager.com". If it's still there, can you point me where? Paul2520 (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Paul2520: Yeah, sorry I mixed up things. It must have been that one since it doesn't appear anymore. --Budmad (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Burkina Faso should be light green in the African Union section

According to the African union page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union 78.147.115.65 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 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/20071024234234/http://web.utah.edu:80/unews/releases/05/feb/homosapiens.html to http://web.utah.edu/unews/releases/05/feb/homosapiens.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 04:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2016. Include Map of Africa history.

 Please include the sub-topic after the Geography section before Climate:
                       MAP OF AFRICA
  The first map of the whole of Africa was drafted in 1554 by Sebastian Munster (1489-1552), a professor of Hebrew at the University of Basel,Heidelberg. The map was drawn through descriptions from German scholars and foreigners. Later in 1584, Abraham Ortelius published the Theatrum, the first real atlas. Among these was the first standard map of Africa. Ortelius’s atlas was revered as it was accurate enough with texts on the back describing each location on the map and the sources he used to draw the maps. Other maps of Africa were drawn centuries later depicting much more detail and different styles of draftsmanship.  A peculiar thing about the map of Africa is its outline and shape. It is fairly very easy to sketch and it adapts well to art impressions by artists.

Andromeada (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2016

Please change "Tropical beach in Mauritius, Trou-Aux-Biches" to "Tropical beach in Trou-Aux-Biches, Mauritius" because Trou-Aux-Biches is an area in the country of Mauritius. This formatting will make people think that Trou-Aux-biches is the country and Mauritius is the area which is false. It is the other way around. It goes area first and then country.

Thank you! 144.138.26.6 (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2016

Ů

2602:306:C4B9:6A90:9940:4745:2031:21E2 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Africa where we started

Africa was where the first humans began from. We evolved and travelled by boat to other counties like Europe, Asia and America This what agnostic people believe in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretexplorer (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Default article

Why is Africa (the Continent) the default article when you search for 'Africa'? Shouldn't it be Africa (the Toto song)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamseiko (talk • contribs) 03:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I see a major problem with the use of the word "median" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The first sentence:

"Africa's population is the youngest amongst all the continents; the median age in 2012 was 19.7, when the worldwide median age was 30.4."

If you follow the hotlink in the sentence itself to the entry for "median", it says this:

"The median is the value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half. In simple terms, it may be thought of as the "middle" value of a data set."

I'm no mathematician, but this bears out what I remember of the mathematical meaning of "median": the midpoint between the high and low values of a data set. It is *not* the average. It's the middle, regardless of average. If the data skews high or low, the average will follow, but the median is unchanged regardless of data as long as the end points remain the same. Can someone please explain to me why, if the median age of Africa is 19.7, this doesn't mean that there is no one on the continent of Africa who is older than 39.4 years of age, and no one wordwide who is older than 60.8? (I know this isn't true, since I'm 65 myself.)

Obviously, I think the correct term here would be "average", or perhaps "mean". I know this may seem like a quibble to some people, but I think precision in language is important for a source that aims to be authoritative. 174.56.243.121 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The median is not the middle as in halfway between the highest and lowest data point. The median is the middle data point when the points are ordered by their values. So if you had a set of numbers 1-1-2-4-7, the median would be 2, as it is in the middle of the set, not 4. Best, CMD (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130104143844/http://wmo.asu.edu:80/world-highest-temperature to http://wmo.asu.edu/world-highest-temperature
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206051452/http://www.africanews.com:80/site/list_messages/18831 to http://www.africanews.com/site/list_messages/18831
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520182556/http://www.afrol.com:80/features/10278 to http://www.afrol.com/features/10278
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503210549/http://www.africa-union.org:80/official_documents/Speeches_&_Statements/HE_Thabo_Mbiki/Launch%20of%20the%20African%20Union,%209%20July%202002.htm to http://www.africa-union.org/official_documents/Speeches_&_Statements/HE_Thabo_Mbiki/Launch%20of%20the%20African%20Union,%209%20July%202002.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous Africa map for certain African country pages

Morocco was readmitted into the African Union recently. Yet in certain African country pages, Wikipedia is still using maps showing Morocco is not in the African Union and singling it out as grey. For example: South Africa, Lesotho, Tanzania, Togo, Republic of the Congo, Kenya and many many other African country pages, whereas some other African country pages avoid this problem. E.g. pages for Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria etc. Isn't it high time we unified the way of presentation and remove all presentations of Morocco as outside the Union? First I was tempted to put this note on specific African country pages afflicted with the problem, then I discovered it is a widespread misrepresentation on Wikipedia, so I thought posting it here on Africa talk page. werldwayd (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

High time? It's been little over a week! That's 55 separate maps someone has to update. The AU really shouldn't feature on country location maps, and the orthographic maps are better, but in the meantime, while the AU maps should be updated it's a very understandable error. That said, if no-one else does it I'll see if I can find time over the next few days to fix that particular map series, lest it turn into another south sudan situation! CMD (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated for any effort in this regard. Since most of these are to be updated anyway, that we adopt the more esthetic formula used in Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria. No need to mention which country is member of AU or not a member when we are basically talking about a country's location on a continent. werldwayd (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Location in the world is what the proper aim should be! You can find the orthographic maps as Commons:Grey-green orthographic projections maps. CMD (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think focussing on position on the African Continent itself is good enough. No need to expand to a world map. This form of focussing on a continent is adopted elsewhere on Wikipedia: E.g. Germany is displayed on a European Continent position, China is positioned in an Asian Continent, Mexico is in an Americas continent. So displaying African countries on an African continent basis is good enough, more importantly consistent with the rest. werldwayd (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Both China and Mexico have orthographic world maps (shows half the world), like Algeria etc. you mentioned at the start. CMD (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• This just a correction comment to earlier assertion by Werldwayd. Germany, just like other EU members are still displayed on both EU and European continent position.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Maps updated. CMD (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia!

Thanks, Wikipedia! For NOT mentioning Poverty, Africa's most urgent problem, in the lead! This is great, great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.31.126 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(From a watcher impervious to sarcasm). Please feel free to make good any omissions, using content cited to reliable sources. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Haploidavey (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It is actually in the article: "Poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and inadequate water supply and sanitation, as well as poor health, affect a large proportion of the people who reside in the African continent." - Right now the lead sounds like Africa is one happy continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.31.126 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's covered, at least in outline. And the articles on specific countries cover poverty and the consequences of colonialism in a great deal more detail. But are you able to edit the article lead to reflect the article content more accurately? Haploidavey (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It is called Wiki-pedia because most people only read the lead. In addition, the topic of "poverty" is essentially for the whole continent - omitting this in the lead is not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.31.126 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say the omission was right; I agreed that it needs fixing, and invited you to fix it. (Just as an aside, I disagree that the whole continent is or should be characterised by its poverty; it has many deep, serious poverty issues but they're accompanied by examples of extreme wealth and success. Astoundingly unequal, whatever the causes). Haploidavey (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100528152425/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/PTOLEMY.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/PTOLEMY.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131200200/http://globalpolitician.com/21498-africa-malawi-poverty to http://www.globalpolitician.com/21498-africa-malawi-poverty
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=58925

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

Please Include Mogadishu as one of the major cities in Africa. It's one of the most historic as well, over 1000 years old. thanks 68.149.25.46 (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140307060153/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990712080500.ht to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990712080500.ht
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011083356/http://princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/history1.htm to http://princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/history1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924044751/http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_proj_africa.aspx to http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_proj_africa.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117005910/http://www.usaraf.army.mil/MAP_INTERACTIVE/INTERACTIVE_MAP.swf to http://www.usaraf.army.mil/MAP_INTERACTIVE/INTERACTIVE_MAP.swf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Imagemap

The imagemap in the African Union section needs to be redone or removed, it is highly erroneous: {{Africa countries imagemap}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rail88 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 June 2012

Description of a picture

"The intricate 9th-century bronzes from Igbo-Ukwu, in Nigeria displayed a level of technical accomplishment that was notably more advanced than European bronze casting of the same period."

The description of one of the pictures is very vague and debatable. 9th-century European craftsmanship in Europe was at the same, if not higher, level than in Africa at that time. 9th-century is already a Viking era, Carolingian Renaissance etc. Art in the 9th century was primarily dedicated to the Church and employed as basic tools of the Roman Catholic mass. Thousands of golden art objects were made: Sacred cups, vessels, reliqueries, crucifixes, rosaries, altar pieces, and statues of the Virgin and Child or Saints all kept the flame of art from dying out.

Regions of Africa map makes no sense

The colour key of this map doesn't map the regions of Africa. There are regional colours on the map that aren't in the key and colours in the key that aren't on the map. The key should be fixed or the map removed. Ross Fraser (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2015

Turks in Africa

North Africa

Region settlement	Year of Turkish settlement	Name of Turkish community	Current status
Algeria	1517	Algerian Turks	Estimates on the Algerian Turkish community vary significantly, according to the Turkish Embassy in Algeria there is between 600,000 to 2 million people of Turkish origin living in Algeria. The Oxford Business Group has suggested that people of Turkish descent make up 5% of Algeria's total population, accounting to about 1.7 million. However, other estimates state that the Turkish community make up 10–25% of Algeria's population, if the Turkish-Algerian creole population known as the Kouloughlis are included.
Egypt	1517	Egyptian Turks	About 100,000 Turks are still living in Egypt are often called "Egyptian Turkmens" or "Egyptian Turks" because various Turkic migrations to Egypt began as early as the 7th century. However, most of today's descendants, about 1.5 million, have assimilated into the Arab population.
Libya	1551	Libyan Turks	In 1936 there were 35,000 Turks living in Libya, forming about 5% of the total population at the time.
Tunisia	1574	Tunisian Turks	As much as 25% of Tunisia's population are of Turkish origin.

Algeria = 600,000–3,300,000

Tunisia = 500,000–2,400,000

Libya = 50,000

Egypt = 100,000–1,500,000

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015

There was old time and now they are being like updated African

GYPSY MOTH BY:ANISEA COLBERT The Gypsy Moth caterpillar feeds on oaks aspen and a variety of other hardwood .several consecutive years of such feeding can kill trees entirely

The larvae develop within the eggs in the fall, but remain with their eggs for the winter months and emerge when buds start to open in spring. More »

Misnomer under Demographics

Under the demographics section it reads " Africa's rapid population growth is expected to overtake the only two nations currently larger than its population, at roughly the same time - India and China's 1.4 billion people each will swap ranking around the year 2022.[103]" which is a big misnomer since Africa is a continent, not its own country, so the comparison makes no sense. NullaVisus (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

I want to edit mistakes Davisfamily8 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2018

197.235.24.176 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No actual request. Kleuske (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2018

Change the current climate classification map (Africa map of Köppen climate classification.svg) to one with a higher resolution (Koppen-Geiger_Map_Africa_present.svg). This journal article should be cited: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018214

Thank you! Hylken (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done  Spintendo  08:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.104.37 (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

TERRITORIES AND REGIONS

There are a lot of inaccuracies and misguided information in this article and it's loud and apparent in the "territories and regions" section. It is important to note that Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius ARE NOT in East Africa (Kenya and Uganda for example are in East Africa) but those countries are in fact in Southern Africa. I know someone will probably argue about this but look at it this way: how can Namibia be in Southern Africa while Zimbabwe, sharing the border with South Africa and some of the above mentioned countries be in East Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnet Benjamin (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

In many cases directional region names are determined more by cultural and historical geography than by strict physical geography. Take the regions of Brazil for example. Or the regions of the United States. This same "messiness" applies to the African continent. Brycehughes (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Madagascar really part of Africa?

I know that Madagascar is close to Africa, but it is not on the African continental shelf, so doesn't that mean it's not really part of the African continent? Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 21:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Continents are defined entirely by convention. People say it is part of Africa, so it is part of Africa. CMD (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, what continent is it part of, if it's not part of the African continent? Triplingual (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe none of them ;) CMD (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Atlantis, resurfaced. Triplingual (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep I concur, none of them, sort of like the Heard and McDonald Islands, or Fiji, some islands are not part of any continent. But oh well, I suppose you're right, as if we're looking solely at continental shelves then the idea of Africa as a separate continent becomes ridiculous as it, Asia (joined by the Isthmus of Suez), Europe and even the Americas (joined at the Bering Strait), are part of the same continental shelf. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 01:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, at least Africa is more or less contiguous with a single tectonic plate! I recommend this book for an interesting look at the matter. CMD (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2019

+ Dollars per day per person per African state in 2017 !African state !Dollars per day per person G273Y (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I put everything in my sandbox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G273Y/sandbox

--G273Y (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@G273Y:  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.

Good work on the chart, but given how high-visibility this article is there needs to be a discussion first. I noticed some style errors: the title of the chart should be clearer about what "dollars per day" means (I'm assuming average income of some kind?), and "for African state" in the subtitle should read "in African states". —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 01:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello,I took the data from here: data from IMF. So I divided the Gross domestic product per capita, current prices in 2017 by 365. I put the code so you can modify it yourself as you wish: https://pastebin.com/pY3uKjrF --G273Y (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2019

The link to source #36 is incorrect:

"Sahara's Abrupt Desertification Started by Changes in Earth's Orbit, Accelerated by Atmospheric and Vegetation Feedbacks" Archived 7 March 2014 at the Wayback Machine, Science Daily

The correct link has an "m" at the end (otherwise you'll never find it on wayback machine): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990712080500.htm

Thanks! 141.156.183.12 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 22:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

This is home to many other species of animals Estatic monkey (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2019

There was an outdated fact relating to Africa's economy. A statistical comparison seemed to suggest that 86% of the Indian population was living on less than $2.50 (PPP) per day. Unfortunately, this is a blatantly false claim, since the percentage of extreme poverty in India is only 3.7%. (See, for instance: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2018/06/19/the-start-of-a-new-poverty-narrative/). As such, I would appreciate it if the article could be updated to articulate a more accurate analogy re Africa's economy. Verbena7 (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are requests to make specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. Additionally, it's not clear what India has to do with anything here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

1,275,920,972 Population / 30,370,000 km2 = 42,01 Population density

1,275,920,972 /30,370,000 km2 =42,01 Population density not 36,4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.36.59 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

Etymology:

The word “Africa”, name of the goddess Africa adopted by the Romans, seems to be linked to the Berber term taferka designating a land or land property.The ones who live on this land are named Aferkaw, which would have allowed newcomers to designate Africa in its modern term. 99.48.179.151 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"This is the most plausible theory. This term is still used till this day to designate land in many different North African berber tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.179.151 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

please add this to the Etymology section:

The word “Africa” seems to be linked to the Berber term "Taferka" designating a land or land property.The ones who live on this land are referred to as "Aferkaw". The word "Taferka" is still used today to designate a piece of land in many different North African berber tribes. 99.48.179.151 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources that support these statements. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Simple map showing the countries of Africa?

There's no simple map showing the countries of Africa. The map embedded in the text under Territories and regions can be clicked but the popup shows an image with country borders but no labels. 92.25.47.124 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

AFRICA POPULATION EXPLOSION

The population of Africa was 177million in 1950, and it grew 7 times to 1260 million, and doubling around 14 years.

The increase in population is explosive, with a population under the age of 14 in the exponential growth phase, a difference from almost the rest of the world, which is already in balance (USA 1966, Europe 1969, Mexico 1990, Latin America 2000, India 2009, Asia 1977). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.171.57.108 (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

In the North Africa list of territories they are missing the two Italian islands of Lampedusa and Lampione, belonging to the African plate and not to the Eurasian one, in the same way as the Canary Islands. As such they are also reported in the Italian version of the article - and maybe in some others languages. Plus the English version of the Lampedusa article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampedusa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.162.4.78 (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Pelagie Islands belong to Africa

In the North Africa list of territories they are missing the two Italian islands of Lampedusa and Lampione (Pelagie Islands), belonging to the African plate and not to the Eurasian one, in the same way as the Canary Islands. As such they are also reported in the Italian version of the article - and maybe in some others languages. The same is also stated in the English version of the Lampedusa article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampedusa. The list should be therefore updated and Italy included in the list of nations with territories in the African continent.94.162.4.78 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Mario

Unlock please

If Black lives matter, why is this page locked from editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.226 (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This page was locked following various bouts of vandalism and edit warring. To request an unlocking, please post at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. CMD (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

True size of Africa

The "True size of Africa" image does not show the True size of Europe as it lacks a substantial part of that continent (namely the whole Scandinavian peninsula, large parts of the East as well as all major islands except for GB and Ireland... while the only major African island is explicitly used in the comparison). Alaska is missing in the US polygon. The statement which the image want to convey may still hold, nevertheless I suggest removing it until until quality has been improved such that the methodology of the image does not contract its own message any more. 2A00:EE2:906:700:6808:8C37:4B3A:99B5 (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the map as its quality has not been improved. Stardust canopy (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

War

Some areas of Africa, such as parts of the Sahel, are controlled by jihadists, and wars are expected to continue for the foreseeable future, despite international effort. Benjamin (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed ..zero serviceable information ...no links to information or a source that has value. --Moxy 🍁 11:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific please? The source is The Economist. What do you mean that it lacks value? Benjamin (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Please stop reverting me without providing any substantive criticism. Benjamin (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Incoperated into 2 other sections (one already mention this fact) with ref moved for transclution. Sections should not be madeup of one sentence....nor is one sentence preferred anywhere MOS:PARA.--Moxy 🍁 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

NPOV issues in summary

the continent is the least wealthy per capita "in large part due to the legacies of European colonization in Africa"

This latter part is not a neutral verifiable statement backed by citations of reliable sources. Please delete or actually provide some neutral sources. If actual sources can be provided, it should surely be mentioned which countries/regions were involved on the colonial side and in Africa if it wasn't a near universal trend between all the colonial powers in all of Africa - else that's not neutral either.

What I can see is that even during colonial times it was a mixed bag and just overall likely negative: Decolonisation_of_Africa#Economic_legacy "The economic legacy of colonialism is difficult to quantify but is likely to have been negative" with cited "Bertocchia, G. & Canova, F., (2002)" detailing that effect on GDP was probably positive but effect on GNP was probably negative, making the overall outcome negative in the studied models. And that there were differences based on the occupying colonial power, the status of the colony and so on. The same paper also says "The economic consequences of decolonialization are difficult to measure" and that for the only six countries they tried to model for this aspect specifically they observed growth after political independence exceeding the pre-independence forecast and is "large in economic terms". Basically the opposite of a suggestion of "ongoing legacies" in terms of economic impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.181.42 (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the statement you are pointing at above (from 2002 by the way), and the whole section describing the instability of decolonized Africa because of the colonization and Cold War reinforce that simple summary of the statement in the lead.... so I am not sure what you are arguing for. Sadads (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That conclusion is highly subjective and not objective at all. The statement is very vague and tries to lead the reader to think that the reasons for African poverty and underdevelopment is largely due to European colonialism. The best thing would propably be to remove that statement from the introduction and rather discuss differing viewpoints on the cause of sub-Saharan poverty. Pastore Barracuda (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a well documented effect of the history on the region -- every analysis I have ever seen of the region, connects modern issues with the long colonial and neocolonial pattern of behavior by world powers in the region -- to try to blame that on geography (which is a human construct) and contemporary leaders is really not approaching these issues from a world systems approach to history, Sadads (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well firstly, how is geography a human construct? Geography simply describe the physical world and we humans have (had) no impact on the placement of rivers and mountains. Geography is a key component to explain differences in wealth and innovation. For example, why is Western Europe so much more prosperous and innovative than Eastern Europe, and why has it been that way for centuries? Well Geography is part of the reason. The Western European geography of peninsulas and sublime maritime access facilitate trade and is therefore a significant contribution to why this region has been the most innovative and economically prosperous region for centuries. Likewise, most of Africa has a lack of navigable rivers and a huge part of the population lives inland. This is not advantageous to trade and human innovation, which explains part of sub-Saharan lack of prosperity, progress and innovation. This is really what the source I provided points out, but you ended up ignoring and misquoting it when you altered my statement. And by the way, the source I used was the most cited article I could find on this issue. I don't discredit the sources you use, but one of them had only one citation if I remember correctly, so the scientific respectability seems to differ a bit. I also want you to know that the way you integrated the source I provided ended up misusing it to back your statement. I hope we both can agree that the seeking the truth is the highest virtue. Thus, I will reformulate the statement again so that the source is not misquoted, and so that the authors' arguments become visible. Thank you. Pastore Barracuda (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sadads: and @Pastore Barracuda: I suggest to settle the dispute by just writing "Despite a wide range of natural resources, Africa is the least wealthy continent per capita, the reasons of which are complex and disputed." in the opening lines of the article and then dedicate a separate section to elaborate on the different points of view you both have raised. This way, the opening part would retain the highest possible objectivity and the article would still present the reader an overview over the various explanations that are currently discussed. Stardust canopy (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sadads: and @Stardust canopy:. Yeah, I think that is a good idea. There is a section in the article discussing this problem and the the summary is not summarizing it. I suggest we go with your proposal. Pastore Barracuda (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Great! Sadads doesn't seem to disagree. @Pastore Barracuda: could you implement this? Stardust canopy (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I fervently disagree --- I was not active for the weekend -- the attribution of the economic and political problems to a history of colonialization is not disputed in history or most social sciences. Sadads (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then how about "Despite a wide range of natural resources, Africa is the least wealthy continent per capita, the reasons of which are complex and multi-faceted."? Stardust canopy (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Map of contemporary Africa

What do the colors represent? I don't see a key.

The line about "showing North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa" is silly; should be deleted.

Both good points. I'm not sure what is has to do with African politics. I removed the map. Brycehughes (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Insigne Sudaniae.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Population figures are mangled and therefore incorrect and misleading

As at 14 June 2021, I read quote:

0 billion people2,015,496 as of 2,015,496,

and there are related problems about the right-column summary (which seems to say population is 2M not 2B). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.91.195 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing this error, could you be more specific as to the location? CMD (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This was due to an error with the population template used in the infobox, it has now been resolved. CMD (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I see the correct info now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.91.195 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

NPOV "common misconception"

The politics section currently starts with "Contrary to common misconception, Africa consists of more than 50 sovereign states.". The first part of the sentence is not verified and thus seems to be against the principles of neutral point of view or verifiability. It's unlikely that it is a common misconception among most residents of Mozambique or Guinea-Bissau. If we want to keep this sentence as it is, I think we need to demonstrate how this sentence is more relevant for Africa than for other continents (except Australia). — Stardust canopy (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stardust canopy: It doesn't need to be a common misconception everywhere for it to be a common misconception. The source identified it as a common misconception, although perhaps it could be worded differently. It was saying how people tend to generalize Africa as more monolithic than it really is, and assume all their economies "rise and fall as one", if I recall. It was reworded by another editor in a way that made it less accurate, I think. Benjamin (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: Thanks for discussing! :-) Unfortunately, the source is paywalled, but I trust that the statement is in there. I find it strange to start a major section with a counterfactual statement. As a compromise: Would you be fine with creating a new section (or subsection) called "Common misconceptions" and export the sentence there? Stardust canopy (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: Please check whether you consider the proposed new section an acceptable solution. Stardust canopy (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Stardust canopy: Thanks for helping with this! I like the idea of having a section for it. I initially thought that "one entity" was too strong of wording, but then I read that Bush once said "Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease", so perhaps that wording is more appropriate than I initially thought. I do think "independent economies" is more accurate than "mostly uncorrelated", but I could be wrong, if you have evidence of it. Overall, I'm satisfied. Benjamin (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I was going to suggest we move the newly created section to the List of common misconceptions, but in this case, the "common misconception" part does not appear to be supported by the easily accessible source. Could someone please check it again just to make sure I haven't missed it? M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It's required to be in this article, before it can be included in the list of common misconceptions. I read that issue of The Economist in print, so I can verify that it identified a common misconception, but I'm not sure if I still have the issue handy. Benjamin (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

In that case, you need to provide a new source and the current cited source needs to be removed. M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh? The source is fine. Benjamin (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

{hou] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:9F8F:B901:C85E:4393:C37A:50C9 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you read it again just to make sure it supports the statement? M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: Your opinions about what people "should" know don't determine inclusion. The source is explicitly about Africa, so I don't see how it's irrelevant. Benjamin (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In so far as it is a fact, it is a fact about the ignorance of some people: it does not teach the reader anything about Africa. There seems to be no benefit to the reader to be given the very imprecise "more than 50 countries" when the clear fact of 54 countries and 8 territories has already been established. If the intention is to construct a sensible encyclopaedic article, we do not need content more suitable to a DK fact file for 8 year olds. Kevin McE (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You could say that about any common misconception, but Wikipedia still mentions plenty of them. It matters that the source finds it worthwhile to mention, not your opinion about it. Benjamin (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey all: I think you are talking about the same thing: this is a real phenomena, that is documented. The question is what kind of weight we put on these topics. I think rather than treating this as a "misconceptions" article, it would be better to think about a broader set of broader "International representation" questions. For example, there was research recently from the USC that talks about the misrepresentation of Africa in global media, well documented misrepesentation in the news, there are systematic gaps on Wikipedia, and there is a complicated historiogrpahy. Maybe we rename the section and give it a broader focus on different ways that Africa is represented poorly in international conversations. I can take a pass at doing this over the weekend if we want, Sadads (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think those sources would be good to add as well. Benjamin (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I like the solution suggested by Sadads. Stardust canopy (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There might be grounds for some text on the tendency of 'first world' media to treat the huge and diverse population of Africa as though it were one homogenous group, but essentially stating, "some people don't know what a continent is," which is neither encyclopaedic nor informative about the subject of this page. Kevin McE (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I wrote "more than 50" since additionally to the 54 you mentioned, there are at least two countries that are not fully recognized internationally (Western Sahara and Somaliland) and the precise number was not of interest in that particular section. Stardust canopy (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Phoenicia

First time doing anything on wikipedia, so sorry if my formatting is off, but I would like to point out that this article claims "Early human civilizations, such as Ancient Egypt and Phoenicia emerged in North Africa."

The Phoenician civilisation originated in modern day Lebanon and northern Israel, and they themselves have been found to originate slightly further east. No serious theory posits an african origin. This sentence, and indeed, the entire paragraph, is unsourced.

The author may have been thinking of Phoenicia's daughter civilisation, the Carthaginians. Maybe it would be a good idea to switch out "Phoenicia" for "Carthage".

I don't think I can edit yet, because I just made this account. Anybody care to look into it? Thanks :) Tordenskjold100 (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Introduction summary of Africa blames Western world for its problems

The introductory summary describing the continent of Africa as a general topic blames the Western world for Africa's problems. This concept should be in its own detailed section, not in the introductory sentences about the topic. The introduction should have some numbers, figures and general information, not an explanation of who is to blame for some of the general concepts that have been outlined every briefly, and then the CAUSE for the concept has been explained in great detail. The general concepts of African problems should be outlined in as much detail as the detailed "blaming" that is thoroughly outlined before it's even outlined what the problems even are. Rjenman (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Introduction poorly ordered

. The introduction should have some numbers, figures and general information, not an explanation of who is to blame for African problems that have been outlined very briefly and vaguely, but then the CAUSE for the problems have been explained in great detail. The general concepts of African problems should be outlined in as much detail as the detailed "blaming" that is thoroughly outlined before it's even outlined what the problems even are. This should be in its own seperate section. Rjenman (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

. The introduction should have some numbers, figures and general information, not an explanation of who is to blame for African problems that have been outlined too briefly, but then the CAUSE for the problems have been explained in great detail. The general concepts of African problems should be outlined in as much detail as the detailed "blaming" that is thoroughly outlined before it's even outlined what the problems even are. This should be in its own seperate section. Rjenman (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Situated in all four cardinal hemispheres

The text reads "Africa straddles the equator and the prime meridian making it the only continent in the world to be situated in all four cardinal hemispheres." This is obviously false, as is obvious to anyone who can read a map. 82.128.129.92 (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Insigne Sudaniae.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

Change "Between the 10,000–9,000 BC" to "Between 10,000 and 9,000 BC" in the "Emergence of civilization" section to improve grammar. Geddorr (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done The required changes have been made. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 06:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Alkebulan

@Squaretop: This claim needs to be substantiated before we can add to the lead of the article. So far you listed 3 names and a list of sources (including some questionable ones) with no page numbers (needed for verification). I suggest you start by adding the page numbers here and ideally a quote from the sources that are not readily accessible. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: This article took a lot of time to obtain, if you are going to revert Africa, you should revert only the ones that should be delebrated on instead not removing the entire contribution. There were around 11 articles of which included journals from Oxford University. The other references included Forbes. These are reliable sources. There could have been one reference that could be deliberated on. Reverting the entire edit and reference should have been your last option if you know what I mean?. Thanks. Squaretop (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't know what you mean since a) the number of "sources" is irrelevant if thy don't support what is attributed to them and the only way to verify that is by at least having the page numbers, and b) since the claim is exceptional, it cannot be treated like any other content. M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: You have clearly not read the sources so, therefore, cannot conclude about the information contained in those sources provided as you claim "Sources" is irrelevant if thy don't support what is attributed". Also, those are reliable sources from Journals from Oxford University, Forbes among others. You have not taken out time to read information contained in these sources and you conclude in barely 1 minutes of publishing them?

I would advise you read these sources before concluding what is contained in them. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable which I have followed but you decided to revert my work and effort for no reason. Thanks. Squaretop (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)--Squaretop (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Squaretop: Where in these sources[11][12][13][14] are the names that you added mentioned? M.Bitton (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"Africa straddles the equator and the prime meridian making it the only continent in the world to be situated in all four cardinal hemispheres."

This is simply false. Latitude zero longitude zero is a point in the Gulf of Guinea. Africa includes territory situated in three of the four cardinal hemispheres: Latitude > 0, Longitude > 0 (for example, Sudan); Latitude > 0, Longitude < 0 (for example, Senegal); and Latitude < 0, Longitude > 0 (for example, Mozambique). It is NOT situated in the cardinal hemisphere Latitude < 0, Longitude < 0, which covers the South Atlantic and South America. Look at the map to the right of the start of the text of this article. Find Latitude 0 Longitude 0 (intersection of the equator and the line that passes through the prime meridian, i.e. through London). Now go down and to the left. You find the Atlantic Ocean and South America. This cardinal hemisphere does not contain any African territory or African islands. Because the text is locked, this can't be edited, so one of the Wikipedia TruthMakers™ (i.e. editors) needs to change the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.231.248.11 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The cardinal hemispheres are Western, Eastern, Northern, and Southern. Africa is in all four, despite not being in all four lat lon quadrants. There is no southwest hemisphere. —skew-t (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Religion sections

The Figures of Religion are wrong. The source Claims 49% Christian and 42% Muslim, but someone did Change it. Could someone correct the Numbers according to the source. Thank you 78.94.194.226 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Political map 2021 is wrong

According to Tanzania's wiki page, Dodoma is the capital now (used to be Dar es Salam). The same thing is said on Salam's page. Could someone fix the image? Don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterridley451 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Problems in the lede

The phrase

"The last 400 years have witnessed an increasing European influence on the continent. Starting in the 16th century, this was driven by trade, including the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which created large African diaspora populations in the Americas."

seem to give some emphasis on "Trans-Atlantic slave trade" and "[sub-Saharian] African diaspora". This article is about all of Africa. Trans-Atlantic slave trade was not something that affected the whole continent, it is a partial phenomenon. African history is full of phenomena that affected large swathes but not all of Africa, for example the spread of Islam, Christianity, the Bantu expansion, the Arab slave trade, the spread of Arabic, French and English languages. I see no justification to focus on this. If slave trade is to be mentioned I suggest it is done in a wider perspective. Dentren | ^Talk 07:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Poetic description

The section Early civilizations starts with the phrase:

At about 3300 BC, the historical record opens in Northern Africa with the rise of literacy in the Pharaonic civilization of Ancient Egypt.

This tone sounds more poetic than encyclopedic. Should it be revised? 216.207.176.186 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pharaonic civilization" seem redundant to me. The rest is in my opinion fine. It is not impossible to find cases where "poetic" and "encyclopedic" language overlap, those cases should not be considered undesirable. Dentren | ^Talk 07:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for informing me. 216.207.176.186 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Economy

There is some genius here who reverted my edits regarding the current updated per capital incomes but he or she referred to the prior even in regards to Libya or Sudan since 2016 when we have data of current 2022 Nlivataye (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The religious statistics

Islam at 42% seems exaggerated even if we assume the current Muslim majority countries in Africa are 100% Muslim( Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Half of Nigeria( also a speculation) a third of Ethiopia and Tanzania and most of West Africa which individual nations are less than 30m after Nigeria and Ghana and with the rest of minorities in the continent interior you would get a figure like 30% overall not 42%. Just do the maths yourself in every given country in the main Wikipedia page. Islam is dominant in North, Sahel, Partially West Africa and Horn. The rest from Central, East and Southern is Predominant Christian Nlivataye (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a source in this article that gives the figure 42 % and in Religion in Africa there is a figure of about 40 %. It is probably somewhere close to 40 or 42 %, and if you want to change that number you will need a reliable and better source to do it. Sjö (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Afro-" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Afro- and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 23 § Afro- until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Coats of Arms

Lybia and S. Africa's coats of arms are not showing on the list that appears near the end of the article. I checked out the code but I don't know how to fix it. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Emergence of civilization

"Sorghum was first domesticated in Eastern Sudan around 4000 BCE, in one of the earliest instances of agriculture in human history. Its cultivation would gradually spread across Africa, before spreading to India around 2000 BCE.

Colossal statues of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel, Egypt, date from around 1400 BCE. Sorghum was first domesticated in the[clarification needed]." the phrase "Sorghum was first domesticated in the" is duplicated in the text, in the second case the phrase is unfinished. I think that the second phrase should simply be deleted" PabloGeru (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)