Talk:North Africa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled section

and in no way related to sub-saharan africa.

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

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

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

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

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

This is NOT a silly title. What is silly is someone who cannot admit that "Berbers", or Imazighen as they should be called (coming from the Tamazight word for free people, which I guess would be preferred to the Italian word for Barbarian) populated North Africa well before Mohammed's (pbuh) birth and well before the Arabization of North Africa. As for Imazighen in Morocco, I have found that most Moroccans and certainly national statistics skew the truth of ethnic background. While many Imazighen have long since moved to the cities and forgotten their language, they are still Imazighen. It is an ethnicity, not a choice. So c'mon- embrace your Imazigheness... The King does! <-Don't know when this was posted, sorry don't have wiki skills, but moving it to less distracting place on talk page --Sammermpc 04:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Berbers, Arabs and Ethnicity Wars

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

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

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

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

Third, the discussion of Arab versus Berber is bizarre and very POV. It would be far less prejudicial to note most Arabs in North Africa are of at least partial Berber descent (although our Algerian commentator below seems to be in a bit of a tizzy about the low liklihood of actual djezira arabiya genes in his lineage), rather than the prejudicial Berbers identifying as Arabs language. (Collounsbury 09:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)). == My question is a simple one. We often hear of the politically correct term "African American" to refer to American Blacks. I've always felt that this term was innacurate in the sense that not all of Africa is populated by what you would consider "Blacks". (Plus, being a Canadian, we've never adopted the term "African-Canadian") Aside from European colonizers in South Africa, Zimbabwe etc...a large portion of Africans from north of the Sahara are simply not "Black". Should a Moroccan-American be considered an "African-American" or not? The political correctness reached the pinnacle of silliness when Jay Leno's wife, on speaking of the terrible treatment of women in Taliban Afghanistan, compared their plight to that of "African-Americans in Apartheid South Africa". Really? Are there really that many African-Americans in South Africa? If so, what are they doing there? Are they on vacation from the U.S.?Loomis51 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This is based on the almost certainly false assumption that the Afro-Asiatic languages originated in the Middle East. In fact, most modern linguists think they came out of the Horn of Africa, whose population then was much more racially diverse than it is today. --Mustafa. --- It's not a good idea to crop off the southern half of Africa just too save space on this page. Having the whole continent orientates the reader better. --Menchi 01:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

Few Studies

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

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

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

Sudan, Canary Islands, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Madeira?

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

-Fco

Western Sahara

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

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

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

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

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

Claimed by vs Occupied by with links

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

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

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

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

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

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

"How is [Western Sahara] not occupied?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language Assertions

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

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

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

Requested move

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

---

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

Withdrawn

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

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

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

June 2007 Edit Chaos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article seriously flawed

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

Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do feel rather bad, but you should just embrace your identity. The fact that you are desperate to be anything but black is sad. It is an indisputable fact that North Africa, which is known as L'Afrique Blanche, hint hint, has always been separate from sub-saharan black africa. In fact, black africa was not even explored till a much later time, which is when the division was emphasized. The Sahara was first traversed by Arabs who penetrated into black africa and sadly began the slave trade. As for your solid evidence, again, I believe you are talking about Egypt, and perhaps discussing regions in the very southern "upper" region of egypt, where indeed there was interatcion with sudan etc. Again, North Africa is more than TWICE AS LARGE AS EUROPE. And yes, black people are a minority in North Africa and descendants of slaves, though you will find a much larger proportion in Morocco and egypt. And yes, sadly, they are very BADLY treated and in most cases perform menial tasks. This is not ranting, you need only visit the region. You sound incredibly ill-informed and overall not knowledgable about the region and the Arab world though you purport to be familiar with the region. You also have an inferiority complex and again, your manipulating language. Long live Britannica :-) p.s. gaddafi is considered a schizophrenic in the region and will hopefully disappear very soon, do not let him get your hopes up. It must be very practical though for europeans to burden the southern mediterranean with the problem that is black africa, a problem they caused really. Mariam83 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

A comment for the record: as cited in the Haratin article via good academic sourcing, the above comment (besides bizarrely calling my very Anglo Saxon descended self black) is also entirely wrong as to the issue of non-slave descended populations (not that descending from formerly enslaved people has any shame to it, else half of Italy with its Classical era descended slaves taken from adjoining regions should be ashamed, or many a Maghrebine descended from the Saqaliba - slaves imported from East Europe and Russia). collounsbury 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

Geopolitical map

What is a geopolitical map and what is its purpose?

Geopolitical Maps "Geopolitical reasoning consists of specific cases, not theories. Hence geopolitical maps provide a fundamental basis for our type of analysis. In this section, we present a selection of maps that provide a detailed graphic representation of the main geopolitical issues dealt with inside Heartland."

they are political, not representative, not geographical, not topographical.

this, including personal attacks that border on the irrational are sad. collounsbury 15:50,

God bless and thank you Collounsbury'...whom ever this Mariam 83' is, really in my estimation she is filled with or consumed with hatred for the nergoid race. Which makes me wonder about her heart more than her head (mind)? Basically she is very knowledgeable but not very wise; I would encourage her to search her heart and mind. She in fact sees another human as "other" and thus less than herself, wow she is evolved and so super human. She is very angry and examples what is very wrong with much of the Middle East and the 10/40 window. Ethnic and tribal conflicts, I guess if she believes no one lived in the northern region of Africa before the burburs, or other Arab tribes then that alone speaks to her walled off mindset. I suppose that would be like Christopher Columbus calling the North American continent as un discovered. It was only UN discovered to the east portion of the civilized world, of course the Native Americans who had been living there (and still do) would obviously disagree and most of the known world today would support that reality.

Mariam, being modern or more advanced does not = better, healthier or mentally advanced. For all the qualities you list as less than, your advanced position does not ensure you will be more equipped or less susceptible to life’s hardships, struggles or the reality of the shared human experience. It is only by chance that you were born who you are my guess is that if you were Chinese, Russian or even African born you would be waving that flag too. Mariam, you are you; by the mere hand of God and if you are not a supporter of intelligent design I would say that you are you due to forces not of your making...so please stop acting as if you are better than anyone else. Basically your not and your anger just proves how less than perfect you are'....Collounsbury 15:50 thank you for seeing through her rage. Martin

North Africa, NEW OXFORD DICTIONARY

North Africa

the northern part of the African continent, especially the countries bordering the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Dispute over Map and article

The UN is a political organization with an agenda, I propose using the CIA Fact Book, which is academic in nature. The CIA's Clandestine Services are actually a very small part of the organization, the majority of what the CIA does is fact and information gathering, the Fact Book is part of the Library & Reference Publications section of the CIA it has an academic charter. It is often defered to as the final authority on any matters it covers, contact just about any university lib. to confirm. To those still in doubt, consult this [2]. The geoscheme used by the UN Statistics Division "divides the world into 'macro regions' and subregions, all in alphabetical order." According to the United Nations,

"The scheme was devised purely for statistical purposes and is used only for carrying out statistical analysis. It does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations."[3].

The CIA is less political and more academic than the UN? That's utter bollocks. collounsbury 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

The CIA's clandestine services "are actually a very small part of the organization, the majority of what the CIA does is fact and information gathering. The fact book has an academic charter." But if you consider the UN more academic, then why did you write this recently, "As for the UN and rational observers - well, I disagree mate. I am far more rational than the UN."[[4]] Irrer 10:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And? I don't consider either academic, however the UN has a wider charter than the American intelligence agencies. All this is quite irrelevan Mariam83. collounsbury 11:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

What IS relevant, however, is the UN's warning enjoining laypeople (such as yourself and other wikipedians) from applying a map devised purely for "statistical purposes for carrying our statistical analysis" in the study of non-statistical research, as the UN itself warns, "It does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations." This article, along with a host of other articles on "wikipedia", is therefore, disasterous. Thank you. Irrer.

History section

Shouldn't this also discuss Ancient Egypt? This isn't just about "western North Africa." Brutannica 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

North Africa is more than twice as large as Europe. Your presumption that without Egypt, it would be a discussion only encompassing "Western" North Africa is false. Indeed, Egypt is but a part of Eastern North Africa. Libya is also considered to be part of the Eastern portion of Mediterranean North Africa. And naturally, Egypt should be included in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.76.51 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It should.

Culture and title- inaccurate and misleading

This article uses statistical maps in a hisorical, cultural context and treats North Africa as synonymous with "Northern" Africa. In the culture section, several non-North African countries and peoples (such as Sudan or Ehtiopia) are included in a discussion of Mediterranean North Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.76.51 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sudan

Sudan is not part of North Africa. It is a sub-saharan African country where a small minority of Arabs live. The fact that a small minority of Arabs live in a sub-saharan country does not, however, make that country North African or Arab. Indeed, Sudan is as much North African as it is Gulf Arab or Asian. The only source in the world that lists it as North African is wikipedia, which is not a source. The UN maps are used for statistical reasons, mainly to distribute AID, and not for geographical reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.121.76 (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. I apologise, thought you were vandalising by deleting the map and sentences. Shall we get a consensus here? This seems to be a rather controversial topic that has been debated before. I'll stop editing on this article till then. --Nuttycoconut (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How very familiar the above rant is - our dear Tunisia from Texas again? Sudan is often included in North Africa. I am not sure I agree, but the UN inclusion is the standard used in the article, and it's neutral enough. The false Arab versus African thing has fuck all to do with the geographic framing of North Africa. (collounsbury (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Often? That is untrue. No authoritative source includes it in the definition. There is a huge difference between Mediterranean Arab North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, it makes all the difference. If this has nothing to do with the difference, then why not include Morocco as part of the British Isles? Geographically speaking, Morocco is closer to England than Sudan is to parts of North Africa, as North Africa is nearly thrice the size of Europe. I think that the problem with our age and the rampant ignorance that pervades it is the freedom with which ignorant minds meddle where they should not. Why not refer to the UN and its explanation for the schemes used in these statistical maps?

Please do not curse. As stated by the UN, they include it statistically to carry out statistical research and their categorizations are not to be used geographically, culturally, or politically. I believe this is stated on their website if one does enough research, which is not very wikipedian, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.173.44 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

English-speakers and most especially North Americans tend to be ignorant about this region. Unsurprisingly, many did not know that Iraq was an Arab-speaking country until recently. Perhaps it would be best to consult French Wikipedia and French definitions of North Africa, as the French are the authoritative chroniclers of L'Afrique Blanche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.173.44 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Historically, however, Sudan is included in the definition of the Middle East, NOT North Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.173.44 (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I would like to interject that Sudan, Mauritania, Chad and Niger, are INDEED part of North Africa. I believe this article is about a geographic region. Anyone who can read a map can see that these countries fit the description. Saying that these countries are not North African is tantamount to drawing a North American map without Mexico. I am all for a discussion about the history and the politics and religions of the region, but to change what is fact in order to fit one's own whims would be counter to the pursuit of knowledge. North Africa would still be North Africa even if it was invaded and conquered by the Arabs or the Muslims. So the simple fact that there is an Arab-descended and Muslim majority in the Maghreb does not negate the existence of the areas where this is not the case. I would have hoped to see more extensive handling of the history of the region and its original languages, religions and ethnic groups. I am also puzzled by the focus on Atlantic side of North Africa. The disputed territory of Western Sahara is discussed in quite a bit of detail in relation to Egypt and Libya, which are almost altogether ignored. I would suggest that Wikipedia continue to address contemporary and modern socio-political trends and tides, without allowing agendas to overshadow what is fact. In all honestly, GEOGRAPHICALLY, North Africa is Tunis to Lagos, and Dakar to Asmara, REGARDLESS OF CURRENT LANGUAGE, CULTURE, OR RELIGION. Within that boundary, Wikipedia should definitely discuss the diversity of the area. Of course discussing modern North Africa is impossible without a massive dedication to topics of Arab and Muslim culture, but North Africa is not synonymous with Arab, Muslim or Middle East. - http://www.mytravelguide.com/travel-tools/maps/North-Africa-map.php

Archiving

I have archived earlier conversations. I hope we can move forward from here with a positive and civil tone. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing POV language on W. Sahara

I noted that Koavf restored without discussion his preferred POV, partisan, language on W. Sahara w/o discussion. I have restored the compromise version achieved in 2007, and tweaked to hopefully achieve a NPOV version that balances both Polisario and Moroccan activist views, and communicates actual facts. (collounsbury (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Linked not Separated

Whatever terms one uses to describe the various regions, one thing is clear, the Sahara in all respects joins North Africa to Southern Africa. Firstly, the Sahara is land, not outer-space - so there is no physical separation. Secondly, the Northern most states of Africa all have land borders with states that are to the south of them - some in the Sahara, some only partially so. Thirdly, the Northern most states all have cultural links to the lands to the south of them, sharing languages, religious beliefs and other cultural traits - including extensive, ancient trading links. Fourthly, the northern most states to the far east and west of the region share coastlines with their southern neighbours (Egypt with Sudan, Morocco with Mauritania). Fifth, the states to the north and their southern neighbours share political affiliations in, for example, the Arab League and the African Union. One of the world's major rivers flows from the South, to North Africa). Ackees (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC) FUCK

Another messed up Article

What is the deal about North Africa, we seem to have a bunch of messed up folks working on these things. I clicked on a link concerning the peoples of North Africa and it was redirected to an article on West Asia. There are also Negroid africans and Berbers living in North Africa. Where are the admins for wikipedia regarding some of these articles?PB666 ^yap 23:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Basic Propeties of the Table

The basic facts in the table do not add up. If you look at the figures for population, GDP and GDP per capita then the relationship should (obviously) hold such that:

GDP per capita = GDP / Population

As this doesnt hold, one of these three figures must be incorrect (or measured differently). Does anyone have an explanation and/or correction we can include? 130.195.96.112 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source - Muslimheritage.com material

Content from Muslimheritage.com / FSTC is an unreliable source, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science. None of its publications are peer-reviewed, and its authors often exhibit a strong bias and incomplete or flawed citation practices. The site has been used as a source in numerous articles to make extraordinary claims about Islamic invention and discovery. I am working to remove general references to the cite, and extraordinary claims where they stem directly and solely from a Muslimheritage.com reference. Many of these claims were added by a user who has a history of using flawed sources for extraordinary claims, as discussed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. That page details numerous examples where claims from these sources contradict more reliable sources, on a scale which casts the entirety of the material originating from the site into doubt. If you would like to discuss this or any related removal with me, please leave a note on my talk page. Dialectric (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Add names of countries on the map

What this article (like, probably, many other ones) lacks, makes it much less useful as a source of information. A reader sees from a provided in the article list what countries are considered part of Northern Africa and gets some information about these countries from a provided table. A reader also sees a map of Northern Africa with the borders between countries shown. But he cannot connect one with the other, because the names of the countries are not shown on the map. I think it is a huge deficiency. I actually believe it has to be one of the standard requirements to specify the country names on a map when writing an article about a geopolitical region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.128.2 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move discussion

The article page was recently moved to 'Africa/North Africa'. Where was the recent page move or rename discussed? I don't see it here on this discussion page, where there should at least be a link to the discussion. The formatting with the / looks odd to me. Would you please explain the change if it is not explained elsewhere? Would you make the same change to South Asia? Dialectric (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just history merging the page. Graham87 15:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand the merging of histories but the current title is "Africa/North Africa". I don't think you did that intentionally it should be moved back to "North Africa" (see move log) --Tachfin (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As Tachfin says, the move log says that in that history merge, you moved North Africa to Africa/North Africa. Can you rename it back to just 'North Africa'? Dialectric (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to explain why nothing is wrong at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Histmerge needs fixing. If anyone is still seeing the title of this page as "Africa/North Africa", you need to purge your cache because there is no problem with what Graham87 did. Bencherlite^Talk 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I see the correct title now. I didn't know that a cache purge was necessary.--Tachfin (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Arab as ethnic group

This article says "Arabs" and Berbers are the largest ethnic groups in modern Egypt - that's truth ethno-linguistically but not genetically. The DNA history of Egypt article shows that genetically Egypt's racial profile hasn't shifted that much from ancient to modern times - are we saying that ancient Egyptians were ethnic> That's a tricky assertion.Gymnophoria (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Saharan Africa?

It's weird, if the region below the Sahara is called "Sub-Saharan Africa", then why isn't the Northern part called "Saharan Africa" in return? 71.23.85.67 (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Because the people of North Africa predominantly live above the Sahara, not in it.

Am removing a reference

I am removing a reference to [5]. I am not in the habit of removing sources. However, this time, I found nothing in this American federal authorities document, which wes related to anything in the paragraph where the single reference to this source occurred. North Africa or Northen Africa is just mentioned once in the entire document, namely in the definition of belonging to the race White:

A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

(Precisely what they meant by "North Africa" was not clarified there.)

Perhaps some earlier version of the article contained some reference to "race" in this paragraph. However, the present formulations do not contain such references, as far as I can see. If I missed something, feel free to revert my edit; but please also drop a line here explaining what the purpose of the note is! JoergenB (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You forgot about Poland

The list of countries in the preamble somehow managed to exclude Chad which is North Africa by many definitions, except the extremely narrow one from the UN. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there is absolutely no way that Chad is in North Africa. Mrmisr (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmisr (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Original Research

The distinction between North Africa and much of Sub-Saharan Africa is historically and ecologically significant because of the effective barrier created by the Sahara Desert for much of modern history. From 3500 BC, following the abrupt desertification of the Sahara due to gradual changes in the Earth's orbit, this barrier has culturally separated the North from the rest of the continent.[2] As the seafaring civilizations of the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and others facilitated communication and migration across the Mediterranean Sea, the cultures of North Africa became much more closely tied to Southwestern Asia and Europe than Sub-Saharan Africa. The Islamic influence in the area is also significant, and North Africa is a major part of the Muslim world.

These statements about culture are not supported by the source cited. The opinions need to be removed if there is not a source to substantiate.

Alienkind (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 December 2017

change this The U.S Census define North Africa as Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. to The U.S Census define North Africa as Algeria, Sudan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia. Because that is the Definition of North Africa by the U.S Census since the 1800s till now. The other link is a meeting summary to purpose a new definition of MENA.

Also, change

  Location of North Africa on Earth

to File:Location_of_North_Africa_on_the_Earth.jpg Location of North Africa on Earth as deinfed by the U.S Census since 1800 and U.N]]

References

Mameab1989 (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 December 2017

change

  Location of North Africa on Earth

to File:Location_of_North_Africa_on_the_Earth.jpg Location of North Africa on Earth as defined by the U.S Census since 1800 and U.N Mameab1989 (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

change The most commonly accepted definition by the U.S, U.N and most world governing bodies includes Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, as well as Libya and Egypt. to the most commonly accepted definition include Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and Egypt.Mameab1989 (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Change The U.S Census define North Africa as Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. to The U.S Census define North Africa from the 1800s till our current time as Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia.

References

(Mameab1989 (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)) Mameab1989 (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Mameab1989: Just a general comment about your recent edit requests. Please don't repeatedly post the same request. It sometimes takes time for someone to review a request, so just be patient and wait to someone does. If you want revise an existing request, then just edit the relevant section accordingly.

Also, please do not uploaded a non-free file just to add them to an article's talk page. This is something not permitted by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you want to add a non-free file to an article and are unable to do so yourself, then provide a link to the page where the file can be found so that others can see it determine if it should be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)