Talk:Sub-Saharan Africa/Archive 1

message: Another point I would like to make. I made the changes in keeping with wikipedia's policies. The article, as it was, violated wikipedia's two first pillars blatantly, if not the rest. It was not only inaccurate in a very basic way (sudan is listed as a north african country by the editer and egyptians are considered black? absurd) but it was not at all neutral or objective. One point of view was being presented, namely that of a filmmaker from germany (shahada). I hope everyone respects wikipedia's five pillars and leaves the article as is. [previous unsigned edit made by Mariam83 05:11, 18 June 2007, after the following text.  This tag added by davidwr (talk)/(track) 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violation of Wikipedia's policies

message: I've shuffled the list of countries by region a bit. Specifically, I've moved Cameroon, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon into Central Africa, while leaving Cameroon under West Africa. Cameroon now has a note by it that it is often considered part of both regions.
As for Chad, EG, and Gabon, I've never seen them considered West African except on Wikipedia. If they are commonly included among West African countries, I'd propose a dual listing and notation be added rather than moving them to one region instead than another. BrianSmithson 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further note: I've updated the list to reflect all ambiguity I could find on the issue. The list currently reflects the one found at Africa, unless some anonymous user reverts it again. BrianSmithson 13:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries by region

message: This article is inconcistent in its use of Sub-Saharan and sub-Saharan. Which is correct? Andy Mabbett 16:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sub-Saharan, unless (of course) it occurs at the start of the sentence. Proto t c 11:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: This article makes the point that the division of Africa into sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, with the former being thought of as "black Africa" is bogus.  Black Africa makes the same point.  Wikipedia should not continue to perpetuate the myth that "black" Africa is limited to regions south of the Sahara.  It is simply untrue.  And combining these two articles would run counter to the information included in both articles.  It makes no sense.  Combine them?  Absolutely not!  deeceevoice 17:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merger w/[[Black Africa]]

message: It is said that natural barriers justify the separation of North and Southern Africa, but the Sahara is only one such barrier in Africa. Ethiopia is more "cut-off" from the rest of Africa due to its mountain ranges. There are barriers due to the impassible forest of central Africa. There are also the great Southern desert belts; interestingly enough Africans have been occupying these deserts from the beginning of human history. There is no climate change when we enter Libya, there is no religious change, and we can argue there is no profound cultural changes which wouldn’t be witness moving from Ethiopia to Southern Sudan. Arabic is spoken in Djibouti just like it is in Sudan, all of these are South of the make-believe line. Somalia is part of the same political Islamic alignment just like many so-called Arab countries. Thus the legitimacy of Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be rooted in some more mischievous foundation. 
In this respect to discuss Africa from the context of Sub (a word which has lin ks to sub-human, sub-culture, i.e. a very negative word) absolutely distorted view of African cultures north and south of the equator. Viewing culture from these limiting vantages point poisons the flexibility and deeper appreciate of subtle complexities shared, by these unique cultures. In a nutshell it is more obstructive, outside of science and rooted in extreme racist politics. There is more similarity between Mali culture and the culture of the nomadic Berber people than Bantu groups in the Congo . Amhara culture can be argued to have a deeper relationship with Yemen (which it annexed in antiquity) than Ghanaian culture. So a black and white view of African culture only serves racist generalizations. Historians would like to point to the unilateral influence on African culture by non-African people, never is Africa seen to be the givers of cultural influence outside of its locality. This was extended to the extreme to say Nubians offered nothing to a supposed Caucasoid Egypt. We are to infer that for thousands of years there was only a unilateral cultural and technological exchange. There is also the notion of "other" suggested in Ancient Egyptian writings, which is now being used to suggest they were of a different race. Lopsided scholarship will always try to work outside of established human behavior. When Ethiopian art depicts the people of Southern Sudan there is an artistic difference between how Ethiopians paint themselves and how they paint "other" Africans: This doesn’t mean Ethiopians are not African. Ghanaians do the same thing. Ethnic differences do not mean racial differences.
--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the term, see an argument from the against camp

message: The article was not "hacked."  It was revised to, in part, explain the terminology used in, and the reasons behind, the division of the continent into a region called sub-Saharan Africa.  The text is useful and informative and was inserted as part of another discussion in what used to be a somewhat redundant article on Black Africa.  It was decided after some discussion, that it would be merged with Sub-Saharan Africa, but because the common terminology of "Black Africa" and "North Africa" is extremely misleading, it was felt that some explanation of the terms is warranted.  If anything, it would seem that expurgating this useful information, which both explains and places "sub-Saharan" and related terms in context, is a "hack job."  The article is less informative without the information.  It is restored.  Please do not make wholesale deletions of text -- that has been added as a result of discussion and debate with other editors -- without first discussing your revisions on the discussion page.  Further, your restoration of unfortunate text which gives the impression the only contributions sub-Saharan Africans made to world civilization before the modern era were slaves and disease is indefensible.  deeceevoice 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous version was neither "useful" nor "informative" about the subject of the article; i.e., Sub-Saharan Africa. It focused almost entirely on North Africa, using biased and factually inaccurate information. Furthermore, words like "miscegenation" are offensive and unfit for an encyclopedic article. - Zerida 09:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the reversion to an earlier version

message: Hi, I like the article.  I have a question.  What is the size of sub-saharan Africa?  I am guesstimating that it might be somewhere in the region of the size of North America from the Arctic Ocean down to Guatemala.  I don't know.  This question might sound trivial, but this is the kind of talking point that can do a lot for a Wikipedia article paragraph.  I will put this talk page on my watch list.  Thanks.  --McTrixie 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: Should we provide this quote without any opposing view?  Clearly people disagree with him; the term Su-Saharan Africa exists and warrants a wikipedia entry.  Maybe a section with rationale for referring to it as a separate entity would be useful.
Actually, that quote looks like it was just put in by someone wanting to insert bias; A biased quote like that has no place taking half the introduction.  Maybe in an Alternate Theory/Divisions/??? section, but not in the introduction.
A quote is not biased because u dont understand it, It is a vald well articulated perspective by someone knowledable on the subject, It is a popular opinion among African academics and some whites as well. Even Lonely Planet when they use the term used it "sub-sahara" the term is a problem for many. And more people need to be added. Under no cirumstance should the racist who visit these pages delete it. U find that these people are angre white that hate to see any African voice on terms they invent. This quote is also on Black people and widely considered a serious and valid argument. I will search for more people with this view. look up the word bias, how does it apply to an opposition 2 a racist term which divides Africa. The same as the word Middle East, all of these terms are not of African or Arab origin, clearly critic is valid.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, isn't it true? From what i heard, they hadn't even invented the wheel by the time the colonialists arrived (not sure it's true though) --AnYoNe! 21:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owen 'Alik Shahadah Quote 

message: The Middle East is a historical and political region of Africa-Eurasia with no clear definition. The term "Middle East" was popularized around 1900 by the British, and has been criticized for its loose definition. The Middle East traditionally includes countries or regions in Southwest Asia and parts of North Africa. The corresponding adjective to Middle East is Middle-Eastern and the derived noun is Middle-Easterner.. 
:::::::::This is also true for this term. The same way Middle East is unclear so is this term. Do please tell the vandal to stop pretending that the arguments against the term are "nonsense".--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All of these terms come out of colonialism

message: Wikipedia can be changed by anybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.110.181.210 (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: Surely Sub-Saharan Africa is an oxymoron?
:Funny absurd suggestion. North Africa is almost a continent apart. Those who deny this reality are sadly mistaken. Fact is, the term Africa would not be used today if both sub-saharan africa and North africa were discovered simultaneously. Upon discovering sub-saharan Africa, the emphasis on the Sahara serving as a divide greater than an ocean or sea was noted by many scholars of the time. Today, these labels are blurred by some eccentric absurd being, but wikipedia is not the venue for wishful thinking. Mariam83 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-Saharan Africa 

message: One person two person three person, a term which is validly critic belongs here. This is wikipedia not your POV, this site and this page represents a broad version of valid arguments in all directions. It is not about your argeement or disagreement that dictates what goes on this site. All opposing views need sources. p.s. Noam Chomsky makes films? Henry Louis Gate makes films. I would like to think the person making the critic is more than qualified academic to make this stance.--RastaRule 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wikipedia does not consider "Original" sources encyclopedian. The filmmaker whose ideas you source as encyclopedic claims the divide is imaginary though it is very real, geographically, racially, culturally, politically and economically. It is absurd to suggest that the divide is imaginary. This would be like suggesting that Russia and South Asia do not differ and that the difference between the Russians and Pakistanis is imaginary. Simply unacceptable, please do not impose wishful original ideas on an encyclopedic format. Mariam83 12:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not delete critic of a term

message: If you look at the very concept of Pan-Africanism it is clear that the term is not in favor. Why would you have a concept called PAN (ALL) Africa and then chop up Africa into some colonial view?. FOllow wiki policy when making edits. My edits have references and you are free to work on making it better, but better doesnt mean deletion or pointless reversion. And quotations are valid in a critic of a term. lets just stick to the rules of this site. Doesnt matter how you label people, clearly there is an argument against the term, i have expanded it so shahadah doesnt appear to be the only one, because then if he is mad why is there other serious academics like Nehusia, Diop, supporting this view (or are they not valid because of a lable you put on them?). This site isnt about what we like "absurd" is not a encyclopedic critic, use sources references to validiate anything you are saying rather than "feel". And use the talk page. here is another widly used term Negro, Black Africa, Eskimo (widely used is not proof of correctness)--RastaRule 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what you are on about here, other than you love your edit. I reverted to the prior version as I would like to hear a coherent explanation of why you removed the cultural barrier item, which seems a valid observation, and why in extenso quotation from one critic re a widely used term is needed. I don't see that. So, reverting and waiting for the same. (Eskimo mate is not a good example of your point, bit of a myth the objection). collounsbury 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didnt remove cultural barrier? I wanted to cut down the Shahadah quote? Why would i want to remove a valid argument? Cultural barrier is good, linguistic is good, Ethnic is also good. Because both North And South you get all 3 things. No just follow the rules, the one reverting needs the explanation because that is called edit warring and is poor skills. the burden of proof is on you. I have made valid researched taken the "opinion" from Shahadah and introduced other peoples views. that is called an improvement.--RastaRule 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mate, chill out. I may have misread your edits. I reverted once to the prior consensus edit as frankly you did not explain in a lucid manner your edits. Rereading the current edit, I still have issues, insofar as "citations" or not, the criticisms are clearly marginal, and rather extreme, for a term that is widely applied in region and generally. I can easily see objections to Dark Continent, etc., but Sub Saharan is merely descriptive, it hardly needs a paragraph of marginal critiques. collounsbury 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: the section is valid, i have added much content to wiki for years now and it doesnt violate anything and doesnt need to be stubbed. I do agree it can be reduced a little to avoid any rep, but it must show the full arguments as to inform readers and allow expansion and retort.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am more than familiar iwth your incoherent editing re Zanj, for example. But whatever, if the axe grinders want to add exagerated whanking, let them. collounsbury 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please discuss editing this article. i suggested deleting rep content. i think that is fair. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then a short, concise, non repetitious statement of criticism without extensive block quoting would be a vast improvement. collounsbury 17:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some quotes help the reader understand the objections. But i think "the term is racist" is rep more than once like 3 times, here it can be stated "Some think the term is racist" followed by three references to show the sources where they think it is racist. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cut it in half and it says the same thing, I think the comp should b acceptable to all. but it is far better than b4, it is expanded in content without expanding in space.lets beef up the rest of the article.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please others have warned you about your edits. Please go and see the def of original research. And how wiki works. How can something be an original idea from multi-sources. What is original about it? when academics contest the term with valid clear explanations. Agree or disagree it stays per the rules of this site. The fact is North Africa is distinguished from Sub-saharan Africa for a reason, and the two cannot belong to the same label still this big reason for the difference between north and south myths me (as it is not explained in this article and maybe you should focus on that), so please state it. And then explain how my country Ethiopia fits into the southern notion (lingusitically, culturally, ethnically, historical). Islam has more followers in Africa than in north Africa so religion is out as a divide. Pan-Africanism greatest adherent is from North Africa. please use the talk page.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: wrong. Gaddafi does not represent North Africa, in fact, he is considered a psychopath in North Africa and his days are numbered. In Libya, black illegal immigrants are often attacked and killed. As a North African, I believe pan-africanism is suicide and absurd and unacceptable. If you study history, you will understand. The fact that North Africa advocated slavery and was involved in the slave trade should clarify things for you. You should become more realistic and understand that afrocentrism relies on myth rather than fact. Mariam83 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Halaqah, there is a very clear division, always has been. Remember, this ia an encyclopedia and a free one at that. Mariam83 14:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me what this CLEAR division is then- I beg you.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Halaqah, it is a geographical one, a cultural one, a historical one,a racial one etc. The continent is the second largest continent in the world. North Africa is a region apart, a region that is more than twice as large as europe. It is a region that differs from sub-saharan black africa in every possible way. Recent economic contrusts and the afrocentrist absurdist movement cannot change this fact. It is a region whose people believe should never integrate with an alien culture and far away region. Once the dictators are removed, this view will eb asserted. And how can you say that the sahara is imaginary? again, why does europe begin with spain? if a desert is imaginary then so is a sea, esp a strait. Mariam83 16:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PAN AFRICANIST DONT USE SUB AFRICA

message: Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).
Thus the section which sums up 4 sources cannot be original research. original research is you stating The fact is North Africa is distinguished from Sub-saharan Africa for a reason, and the two cannot belong to the same label from your own mind as opposed to a valid external source.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haliqah, that's not original research, it's history and geographyc. Afrocentrists are easily refuted..so let me explain something to you. If the Sahara is a myth, and the division a myth (RACIAL, CULTURAL, HISTORICAL) then the mediterranean sea is also a myth, as one could swim ? and why does Europe start with Spain? one can easily jump over? shouldn't it start with North Africa? yes..I think you are right..and why shouldn't Ethiopia be Saudi Arabia and Yemen too? they're right next to each other. You are not very reasonable. And adding OPINION IS not encyclopedic. I don't see sharaha in the Britannica, discussing his films and why he should be able to appropriate a civilization that enslaved him because of his inferiority complex. Be proud of your sub-saharan roots. Wa allah yel3anak. Mariam83 15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Halaqah, okay, that is fine. I will add critics who believe that a division exist, always has existed and ought to be reasserted. Good luck. Mariam83 14:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ORIGINAL RESEARCH EXPLAINED

message: As no one has responded, I have taken it upon myself to edit the article (it is my right). I removed all POV "ideas" that are presented as fact. I don't think that African "Holocaust" is encyclopedic by any means and as such, ought not to be used on wikipedia, as wikipedia aims to be encyclopedic (questionable). It should at least not be used in the opening paragraph. References to the African holocaust have been left in the critics section. Whether or not a filmmaker/writer accepts reality is not of concern to the general reader. There is, however, no point in deluding people by inserting POV, eccentric ideas in this text. Why not use KKK as a source? Please try not to distort reality. I added some text to the critics section to balance things out. However, the blurring of lines and manipulation of language etc. has been removed. The author tries to present the label, which is not only geographic but historic, racial, cultural etc., as solely a geographci one. That is not objective and not factual. Mariam83 16:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So not factual is it that you have never answered the question nor has any of your sources why the TWO AFRICA's.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We do not have the "right" to edit Wikipedia, merely the privilege. References are not required to be encyclopedic, or even neutral, but reliable and verifiable. For example, we rely heavily on newspapers as references. Give me an example of an encyclopedic and neutral newspaper. --Ezeu 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes have been reverted because they are unencyclopedic and full of weasle words. Please see wiki policy, critic of a term should deal with critic not some Eurocentric retort. I dont think the angle about the holocaust site is going to wash since it is used all over wiki. It is clear you have a hatred for African people but keep the hatred outside of wiki. Sources must be balanced which means that they must not all come from CNN. I see not similarity between and African history site and the KKK. actually the comment doesnt even deserve a response.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am going to add to the critics section until further review. Please do not remove an opposing view that renders the text more objective. I was adviced to add it, you do not own wikipedia. thank you.. And it is not a eurocentric retort, it is an academic and brave retort. I don't know what you mean by "African" people, but my reverts have nothing to do with black people, and the fact that distortion is widespread means nothing. Mariam83 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Most scholars, however, vehemently reject (not allowed this language on wiki, who is most?, says who?)this distortion of reality and believe that such mythicizing appeals to "black activists who could not care less about the serious ethnographic, linguistic, and anthropological questions such ideas raise."(SAHARA IS A DESERT, SUB SAHARA AFRICA IS A CREATION LIKE MIDDLE EAST) David Gress, a fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, feels that "In this era of galloping anti-intellectualism... NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE BUT THANKS. such accounts, and the political circumstances in which they appear, raise some important questions about scholarship and propaganda in the academy and, a fortiori, in what remains of the general culture." According to Gress, such myths (WHAT MYTHS IS HE ON ABOUT)are based on deception and appeal to anti-intellectual activists. Gress feels that the allowance of such mythicizing is due to academe "suffering severely from anti-European cultural arrogance, or, to speak frankly, from black racist attempts to impose indoctrination in the place of teaching and scholarship."
VERY EDUCATIONAL NOTHING TO DO WITH SUB-AFRICA.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not remove such pertinent information. We need to KNOW who this critic is, I will add it again. Please Halaqah don't try to distort reality! Mariam83 17:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been removed because it has nothing to do with this article or this website, it is better on one of your forums.critic the term not the people--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Halaqah, you are on a mission to distort reality, aren't you? It looks like we are going to need some help here. I am going to refer this article to the Geography specialists. I highly doubt the "african holocaust" is a reputable, encyclopedic source!!!!You are writing about a region and including eccentric afrocentrist bits in it! that is unacceptable! that would be like me writing about China and claiming that russia and china belong to Asia and that the divide is imaginary! or that the mediterranean sea were imaginary etc. Totally unacceptable. Mariam83 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It does have something to do with this POV, inaccurate article! I added a critic to the critique section to counterbalance the afrocentrist views you included in this already inaccurate and unencyclopedic article! Yet you removed it because he is accurately rectifying these eccentrics. Mariam83 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PLease stick to discussing this article and how we can make it better. According to you no African source is "acceptable" when it speaks positive of Africa. I would love to know why it isnt "acceptable" is it the design or the colors they use? Everyone has a bias, should we add more Eurocentric bias? And if someone has an argument against something then it is called a critic, hence the word critic. please tell us why Ethiopia and Ghana are in Sub Africa, what is similar between the two? What about Sudan 1/2 is in North 1/2 in SOuth. Maybe they should cut the country in 1/2. Answers these questions. ohh yeah lets divide USA according to one of its deserts.shall we?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, an academic Sub-saharan african source would be acceptable, one that accepts commonly used and factual definitions. However, the source you are using is not factuaal, it is eccentric and inaccurate. It isn't acceptable because it is unencyclopedic and also absurd. Sudan is not in North Africa, it is a sub-saharan country. If people stuck to encyclopedic definitions, you wouldn't think Sudan was in north Africa. Remember, North African countries are also Mediterranean countries. Also, what differentiates the North is not only geography. It is a host of other factors: History, Race, Culture, language etc. This is what you are overlooking. Again, the source you're using is absurd. It would be like me sourcing the KKK on some other article. It is an extreme view point that is not academic, as it is not in keeping with facts. The USA is one country, traditionally homogeneous. North Africa has always been apart and separate. The slave trade is what established links..perhaps you are confusing North Africa with Egypt? Egypt is another matter due to the Nile River. Mariam83 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sign of weakness is to rely on words like "absurd" Apply : History, Race, Culture, language etc. to Ethiopia and tell me what does Ethiopia and Ghana have in common? why dont you just stick to refuting the content with sources and not Opinion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Halaqah, I totally agree with you. Most sub-saharan african countries have nothing to do with each other and their blackness in no way makes them similar, just as european countries, in their whiteness, are all unique and different and have diff. origins. However, North Africa is not in anyway part of the sub-saharan african world, and the Sahara has separated the two. In fact, a classic historian has commented on the formidable barrier that it is, and likened it to a sea. I have already added a source, I added a critic to the critics section that you have removed. I personally feel that the source you keep using is unacceptable. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so I think we should respect facts. The fact is, North Africa, that is, Mediterranean North Africa, is not part of nor can it ever be part of Sub-saharan africa and vice versa in the same way that Russian will never become China, and vice versa. Mariam83 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is claiming that North Africa is part of Sub-saharan Africa? Sub-Saharan Africa is a notoriously ambiguous term. Your attempt to push a specific definition is unacceptably POV. --Ezeu 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How is Sub-saharan Africa an ambiguous term and to whom? Please explain. And to answer your question, read the article. Mariam83 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. Now, you read the article. Start with the first paragraph. --Ezeu 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ezeu, I have not "attempted" to push a POV definition, I have merely attempted to render this article more encyclopedic. If you are unfamiliar with the nomenclature, please refer to such reputable academic sources as Britannica. It is not an ambiguous term. If the term Sub-saharan is politicized and deemed ambiguous, then all labels can be questioned, such as Europe, Asia etc. The fact is, Sub-saharan is knowable, understandable and blatantly and unmistakably obvious. I have referred this article to the history/geography page. It is in dire need of review. Mariam83 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sub-Sahara is an oft used term, but it is not precisely defined, not even by Britannica. --Ezeu 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has never been defined because it is motivated by ill content for Africa, even shahad said it jumps and slides around to fit negative generalizations. Also the term is in conflict with terms like Arab world and Middle East, so how can be so obvious?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to Black Africa. to wit, the inhabited regions of Sub-Saharan Africa, as separate and distinct from the Mediterranean Arab region of North Africa. Mariam83 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what happens to all the Millions of "Black Africans" that live for thosands of thosands of years in North Africa? What about The Fulani and teh Turag, what Arabs? Arabs only showed up in the 7th century, North Africa is as mixed racial as South Africa today.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: there aren't millions, unless you mean the million illegal blacks who have illegally crossed the borders of libya and who are often times killed and attacked. And the Tuareg from mauritanian are not North Africa, they are black, as mauritania is a sub-saharan black country. North Africa has never been black and the first arrival of blacks to north africa as well as the rest of the arab world and europe was through slavery. North africa is not at all mixed LOL like south africa, you are very wrong and sadly, have an inferiority complex. Black people are from sub-saharan africa. You can't possibly believe what you just said? do you also believe that Beethoven and Ghandi were black? lol =) I urge you to visit a REAL north African country and you will very quickly change your mind. Mariam83 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beethoven and Ghandi? Nice straw man setup. --Ezeu 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removed POV ranting

message: I disagree. And to you rastarule, I will never respect four misinformed, propagandist editors. I have noticed, however, that on wikipedia, content is almost always the last on everyone's agenda. The fact is, this article is flawed and UNENCYCLOPEDIC. This is not an afro-centrist pedia, hence, all references to eccentric, unscholarly "ideas" should be removed at once. The article was also written from a sort of apologetic perspective, as though the Sub-saharan African that wrote it were searching for ways to efface Sub-saharan Africa's sub-saharaness and blackness. Mariam83 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article flawed