Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:28, 14 January 2011

Africa Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

"The current politics of East Africa have brought little joy to the inhabitants. Most governments are illiberal and corrupt, and poor policies have repressed the undoubted natural potential of the region and its people."

Well, some inhabitants are joyful, namely those deemed undoubtedly illiberal and corrupt. A-giau 12:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Map of East Africa

There's a lot that's wrong with the latest reversion. For starters, the proposed map of East Africa claims parts of Southern, Central and Northern Africa, causing overlap with countries already included in other Wiki pages. I understand that the list of countries was culled from the UN website, but it still contradicts the majority of other international organizations' and countries' definition of what constitutes East Africa.

Most agree that East Africa consists of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Some also include the Horn of Africa. Others add Sudan, Rwanda, and Burundi. Fewer still count Madagascar. And practically none consider Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, and all of the other little islands in the Indian Ocean as a part of East Africa.

The FAO -- a United Nations organization -- only counts Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, the Sudan, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania as comprising East Africa. Another UN organization, IRIN Africa, only includes Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Sudan. The Horn of Africa is classified separately.

This is why the map I reverted to is preferable to the other one you keep reverting to. It stands as a compromise between, on the one hand, the extreme position of lumping parts of Southern, Central and Northern Africa with East Africa despite the actual geographical locations of the countries in question, and on the other hand, restricting East Africa to just Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, which is also geographically unrealistic.

Moreover, the map you reverted to includes a link to the now-defunct Central African Federation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with East Africa. The color coded boxes also do not closely match the colors on the map itself and the striping is confusing, making the map difficult to read.

The body of the article also contains a few inaccuracies. For instance, it states matter-of-factly that "almost every country comprising the present day East African region became part of a European empire". This, however, is only partly true. Although Ethiopia indeed was never really colonized, neither was Somalia except for Italian Somaliland for about thirteen years during the Fascist era. The rest of the time, the region was a protectorate, not a colony.

The new map of British East Africa is also preferable to the one of Italian East Africa for the simple reason that it is period-specific and includes all the actual names of the territories then occupied by Britain. It shows the lakes, roads, towns, etc. in some detail, whereas the map you reverted to is a recent creation and was not drawn from an old, period-faithful book. It's also completely devoid of detail (no lakes, roads, towns, etc.).

Finally, the "See Also" section in your reverted version includes links to Wiki topics (e.g. History of West Africa, North African Campaign timeline, László Almásy, etc.) and to fringe ideological movements (Panafricanism?) that bear little to no relation to East Africa, yet relevant links such as the Axumite Empire and the Land of Punt are curiously absent. 65.92.176.35 (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First, that is part of the point: through your edit, you insinuate a definition of East Africa that isn't sourced or whose prevalence hasn't been established. It is ironic you removed the two sourced definitions from the introduction when placing your own text. Second, the UN certainly does not lump in Central (or Middle) Africa with Eastern Africa -- see UN geoscheme. Third, the link to the CAF is relevant, since some areas of what may be reckoned in Eastern Africa were part of it and provides contrast. Lastly, the long-standing map is a conciliation which accounts for any number of definitions of East(ern) Africa better than the simplistic map you favour. Feel free to restore the map of British East Africa or to nix notions regarding European colonialism below, but notions upfront -- including the map and 1st section -- shall remain. 69.158.152.173 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I did supply sources for my definition of East Africa. I supplied two direct links to the FAO and IRIN Africa United Nations organizations which directly contradict your one UN source.

Furthermore, the majority of official definitions of what constitutes East Africa do not encompass anywhere near the number of countries you cite. You yourself even reverted to a dictionary definition from the New Oxford Dictionary of English which restricted East Africa to just Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda i.e. the traditional colonial definition of East Africa. The rest was known as the Horn of Africa, and Mozambique et al. never figured into the picture at all. Your other source citing the Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary here also does not include Mozambique et al. Only your one UN source does which, again, is directly contradicted by my two UN sources.

Here's a recap of why the map I reverted to is much preferable to the one you reverted to:

1)It does not conflict with other Wiki pages that already include the areas of North, Central and Southern Africa you are proposing we include along with East Africa.
2)It is neither a conservative view on what constitutes East Africa (which, again, would consist of just Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania per the dictionary definition you yourself supplied), nor an extreme one which co-opts parts of North, Central and Southern Africa like your map does.
3)It is very easy to read. It's properly color coded and does not include any confusing striping or anything of that nature.
4)It makes it clear which countries are traditionally considered a part of East Africa and which only sometimes are.
5)It includes a legend to accurately gauge distance per both 1000 km and 1000 mile.
6)It doesn't include any irrelevant links like the Central African Federation link in your map, which is beyond irrelavant since the CAF not only has precious little to do with East Africa as a whole to begin with, it's not even operational any longer.

Just because something is of "long-standing", doesn't make it right.

You also state in your introduction that "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries... Rwanda, Burundi, and Somalia", which is not true. Only Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary promotes this idiosyncratic and, frankly, very bizarre definition which reserves the "East Africa" distinction for those two adjacent Central African countries and, of all places, the eastern-most country on the continent despite thousands of miles and a whole slew of more easternly nations standing between them.

On top of that, your introduction alleges that Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia are "often reckoned" as the Horn of Africa. This is an understatement, to put it mildly. Those countries are always known as the Horn of Africa, and I even provided a reference supporting this in my latest revision.

Lastly, the "See Also" section in your reverted version still includes links to Wiki topics (e.g. History of West Africa, North African Campaign timeline, László Almásy, etc.) and to fringe ideological movements (Panafricanism?) that bear little to no relation to East Africa, yet relevant links such as the Axumite Empire and the Land of Punt are still curiously absent. 65.92.177.155 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless compelled otherwise, your map and edits to the introduction will continue to be reverted. First of all, it glazes over Egypt, which is clearly located in northeastern Africa and sometimes included in the region, just as Mozambique is in southeastern Africa. Your map also highlights Malawi (also in southeastern Africa) while not noting it upfront in text. The long-standing map is far more inclusive regarding differing notions of the region than your binary interpretation which isn't necessarily corroborated through sources provided, now AND previously. The definition per the UN geoscheme plus inclusions are neither extreme nor uncommon. Second, this article is not about just the 'Horn of Africa' per se, but the eastern part of the African continent; apropos, inclusion of the constituents of the defunct Central African Federation (which includes countries often included in Eastern Africa) is relevant. Third, a scale indicator is an unnecessary innovation for a locator map: point me to one other African locator map that has it. Lastly, the long-standing locator map was established despite objection, not because if it. You have provided little rationale to change the status quo here or elsewhere. 216.234.60.106 (talk)

You have got to be kidding. So now you want to co-opt Egypt too? Is that what all this is about?

Look, not one official source includes Egypt in East Africa, not even that lone UN scheme your entire argument is predicated on (which, again, is directly contradicted by the FAO and the IRIN Africa sources I cited -- both UN organizations). This factoid actually only serves to further invalidate your map since it includes Egypt as a putative member of both East Africa and the East African Community, neither of which it is.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition you cite above, in turn, is contradicted by the Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary definition you supplied earlier. It also runs counter to the New Oxford Dictionary and Encylopedia Britannica definitions of just what constitutes East Africa, like I've referenced in my latest reversion.

Again, your entire argument for reversion is based on that one UN scheme for Eastern Africa, which is not the same thing as East Africa despite the introductory sentence in your reversion that attempts to equate the two terms. That UN scheme for Eastern Africa, moreover, is directly undermined by the New Oxford and Merriam Webster's Geographical dictionary definitions you yourself supplied.

And that's just the map. As clearly outlined and re-outlined above, there is still a lot more that's wrong with your entire version of the article.

For instance, you state in your introduction that "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of... Rwanda, Burundi, and Somalia", which is not true. Only Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary promotes this idiosyncratic and, frankly, very bizarre definition that reserves the "East Africa" distinction for those two adjacent Central African countries and, of all places, the eastern-most country on the continent despite thousands of miles and a whole slew of more easternly nations standing between them.

On top of that, your introduction alleges that Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia are "often reckoned" as the Horn of Africa. This is an understatement, to put it mildly. Those countries are always collectively known as the Horn of Africa, a fact clearly supported by the two references I provided.

The distance legend in the map I reverted to also serves to give viewers an idea of just how large the countries in question are and how far apart they are from one another, something your map of course does not do. I can't believe you'd actually attempt to deny this.

The Central African Federation, again, does not include any East African countries. Hence, it's name. The only reason why the person that created the map put it there as a link in the first place was to justify the, at best, tenuous inclusion of Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi -- countries not considered a part of East Africa by the overwhelming majority of standard definitions, just like the many sources I've referenced clearly indicate. The CAF is also defunct, which only serves to render it's inclusion even more absurd. An East African organization that is actually relevant would have been something like the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which comprises Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda. Unlike the CAF, IGAD is also still extant.

Lastly, your map lasted this long only because no one hitherto bothered to effectively challenge its relevance and to properly investigate its claims. I can think of many a peculiar institution that lasted an awful long time too, and I don't mean a few months. Plus, let's not pretend I'm the first person to take exception to the article. A simple look through this talk page shows many of the exact same concerns already raised by other Wiki users. 70.48.98.2 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By two users AFAICT, and that a consensus doesn't make. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature

The term for the region is "East Africa". "Eastern Africa" is everything East of a straight North-South line that divides the continent in half. Note that the handful of references to "eastern Africa" are biological, not intended to be precise along political boundaries. Stan 13:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The UN calls it Eastern Africa . --Eleassar 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

History - Imperialism

Today (march 2 2006), I added the History, Imperialism Era subsection. It would be nice to improve the History section with other historic periods you might have knowledge on.

Astavrou 18:48, 21 December 2005 and all kids should lear at lest something about east africa it is a very nic eplace and its very interesting.

East Africa, proper

It was determined by the British colonialist, for nearly a century, that East Africa is mererly Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. Other East Africans had to wait for wikipedia for redemption. Good on y'all for correcting the truth.--Ezeu 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The map is a mess

If a map's supposed to depict definitions of East Africa (or of Central Africa or of Southern Africa), then we do NOT load it with additional information about international organizations or defunct states (in four different shades of green no less). That's just irrelevant.

What is the map supposed to be about? Is it about all the organizations that ever existed in the area AND about definitions of Eastern Africa? Should we include IGAD on this? If not, why not?

If you want a map about regional organizations in the area, then we should create a *second* map, not arbitrarily combine it with the map that's supposed to be about what "Eastern Africa" instead. Aris Katsaris 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire; including notions regarding previous/related – and titular – political entities is wholly relevant. All are delineated through legends, captions, and accompanying text. Arguably, said articles are as much about geopolitical meanings/interpretations for the various regions, and major ones at that, as they are about merely geographical ones. Moreover, they add credence to what are variably vague terms. For instance, a traditional definition for Eastern Africa includes only those three countries in the EAC; moreover, a user in the sxn above briefly commended this inclusion. IGAD, without notation of the directional term in the name, is an extraneous assumption.

Alternate maps – or use of different colours – are possible, but maybe you should have discussed changes and garnered feedback before asserting an equally arbitrary point of view about the content of this and related articles. I can be compelled otherwise; until then ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And your inclusion of the "Central African Federation" is justified how in a map supposedly about Eastern Africa? Aris Katsaris 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the constituent countries are commonly reckoned in both regions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems the argument for what is to be included and what is not becomes more and more convoluted. Perhaps the map instead of "LocationEasternAfrica.png" should have been named "Location_EasternAfrica_and_Relevantly_Named_Regional_Orgs_and_Local_Defunct_Federations_Named_in_Contrast_to_the_Above.png" Aris Katsaris 18:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And you would provide for neat-and-tidy definitions that vary? Predating related African edits by me, for instance glance at Central Asia. As above, I'm fine with creating added maps or enhancing the current ones ... but adjust your attitude: hyperbole is a non-starter and will be treated as such. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Anthony on this, for what it's worth. The map seems fine to me, and all regions/organisations included warrant inclusion, IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For consistency's sake

If you are determined to include organizations such as the Eastern African Community, and former countries like the Central African Federation, then for consistency's sake, please also include a shading for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (aka COMESA) in there.

If you can.

Aris Katsaris 10:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And you were referring to my well-reasoned choices as being convoluted. Pot, meet kettle. This inclusion would serve little purpose and truly confuse, since numerous COMESA members are found in areas that are commonly reckoned in other areas of Africa and not co-terminous with Eastern Africa ... nor Southern Africa for that matter. Even a glance of the COMESA map clearly exhibits the spattering of members across the continent. I will add it to the "See also" section, however. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* I do not accept your choices as being "well-reasoned". I see them as utterly and irrationallu arbitrary. In the end you argued that these entities contained in their names cardinal directions and thus they should be included -- other organizations like IGAD didn't include them and therefore shouldn't. Now you are arguing that this is not enough and that we must instead evaluate the organizations membership.

Make up your bloody mind. With the ludicrousness of your arguments about inclusion or exclusion, Misplaced Pages can't even pretend at seriousness or professionalism. Will you include organizations based solely on their inclusion of the word "Eastern Africa" or will you bloody not? YES OR NO?? Aris Katsaris 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is now included ... in the "See also" section. Nor is it as clear-cut and binary as the options you would insinuate. I considered merely ignoring your post, my prerogative, since it is constructed to promulgate a point that isn't necessarily agreeable. I defer to my prior comments: I've made up my 'bloody' mind ... and I know that blusterous comments as above cannot nor shouldn't be taken seriously, nor will I hereafter. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You've been pretty much using your prerogative at ignoring me from the beginning, despite the pretense at dialogue. I've still not gotten a coherent *single* explanation why East African Community is included, Central African Federation is included (even here), the South African Development Community is included in the Southern Africa map, but IGAD and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa are not. Can you make one last attempt at a unified explanation rather than bring up a separate arbitrary reason for the inclusion of each of these? Humour me. Aris Katsaris 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not humour you or anything else. If you really think there's been pretense, despite rationale above (read: not arbitrary) and support prior, then you don't deserve any more elaboration than above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't seek "elaboration", you've elaborated pages already, much of it arguing about my attitude instead of about the topic. I seek a concise explanation instead. But whatever. I've let you do with the article as you please -- keep your map in the incoherent arbitrary unreadable form that it is for all I care. It still hurts my brain to look at it or contemplate the logic (and lack thereof) behind it, but I can avoid that by avoiding the entirety of the article. Aris Katsaris 07:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rightly so: if you cannot play nice, and you appear to have difficulty doing that, avoid the playground. I won't indulge your incivility. And perhaps it's better off that you avoid gibbering about topics that cause you pain. Apropos, I am ending this 'discussion'. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Play nice, the two of you. May I suggest medation? —Nightstallion (?) 13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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   00:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The proposed name is not the common name and would be prescriptive rather than descriptive. --Yath 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yath. Dbinder (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the {{catmore}} template from line 111. This is only supposed to be used on category pages. Category:East Africa uses it to link back to this main article for example. — CharlotteWebb 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC) It's been done. — CharlotteWebb 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

History

We have a paragraph on the prehistory and then we go straight to european contact. Surely this wasn't just primitive savages before europe showed up? Zazaban (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There also needs to be a proper sub-section on Post-colonial History, including some details of both the first and second incarnations of the East African Community; probably the Conflicts section should be incorporated into this. Any takers? Apalomita (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

Given the recent edit war, I've opened the issue for discussion here. Night w (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Geoscheme

An editor has added the secessionist Somaliland region of Somalia to the part of the text that lists the 19 actual countries that are part of the United Nation's geoscheme for Eastern Africa. However, the cited UN website most certainly does not include the region among its list of actual countries in Eastern Africa. I have therefore removed this very obvious example of original research. Middayexpress (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because you dropped out of the arbitration doesn't mean that you can set the agenda here. It was agreed among the participants of the arbitration that a mention of Somaliland here is NPOV. The way that Somaliland was added makes it clear that it was not part of the list that the UN pushed, but that interested readers know where it fits in the scheme. --Taivo (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Somaliland was already included in the article (the point of the arbitration). But that apparently wasn't good enough, since you then attempted to add it to the section of the article exclusively reserved for actual countries that are a part of the U.N.'s geoscheme. And that, of course, still most certainly does not include the Somaliland region . This makes your edit very much original research. There's unfortunately no getting around that. Middayexpress (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted where relevant that the UN geoscheme includes Somaliland as part of Somalia. Nightw 12:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the UN geoscheme does not recognize let alone mention any area/enclave in the territory of modern-day Somalia, whether the Somaliland region (which you listed) or the Puntland region (which you tellingly did not list). That is original research. The geoscheme only recognizes and includes Somalia itself, as it does with every other actual country in Eastern Africa. As promised, this matter has now been reported on AN/I. Middayexpress (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That map is also non-free, with no source (it could've been self-made or, more likely, taken from a partisan source) and has an OR caption that places undue weight on a separatist region; not to mention that it's marked for deletion. Middayexpress (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class Africa articles
• Unknown-importance Africa articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics