Talk:North Africa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Africa Definition PoV War - Article Mess needs substantial revert/cleanup[edit]

The Edit War apparently starting some time in 2017 has rendered this article an utter mess.

  1. Map: now shows Morocco, excludes Western Saharan territory, which is highly unstandard. Regardless of territorial views, the Western Saharan territory is typically included in North Africa. Equally the Northern Sudan is usually included and here is excluded. I gather from reading this page due to non-encyclopaedic racialist reasoning. I will put back in the Jan 2017 map which is encyclaedic and shows both core and 'wider' territory that is frequently but not always included in North Africa as a geographic term in the ordinary English usage.
  2. False citation claims for example it is asserted in the first paragraph that US Census bureau defines North African. In fact the cited US Census documentation asserts no specific 'North African' definition at all. The linked / cited documents dating from 2006 to 2015 cite a general category of variously named "Near Eastern and North African" or "Middle Eastern and North African" ethnicities / populations including countries but assert no specific definition of the Region itself, only the broader conceptual geographic region of Middle-East [aka Near East] and North Africa. The claim in the text that North Africa is actually defined in these cites is simply false. It is implied, but with no definitional precision and certainly is not a strong source for a geographic region (insofar as the US Census is ... well the American bureau for its internal population, not an international agency.
  3. Idiosyncratic Non Encyclopaedic definitions / Inclusions: It is typically the case that Wikipedia seeks not to assert de novo idiosyncratic definitions. The addition of for example the Italian islands is strange and bizzare. I have literally in 25 years of professional work in the MENA region never seen anyone include the Italian islands as part of North Africa. Unless there is some source Ex Wikipedia supporting this, they should be removed. Equally the inclusion of the Canary Islands is entirely unsupported - the citations given contain zero support for the inclusion. The US Census Bureau makes no mention of the Canaries as North Africa and the link to a graphic on the UN geographic regions is apparently mistakenly using non-colouration as a basis. The actual Wiki article on the UN regions for Africa shows clearly the country definition (supported by proper citation and found directly on https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ under geographic regions definition.
  4. Contradictory and incoherent country list: The country listing doubles up for example the Western Sahara and SADR - the same bloody territory - that is excluded incoherently on the map. It includes of course as noted above the strange assertion on the Canaries, the Italian islands, etc. which has no support in general usage of the term and is a de novo definition being created on wikipedia (presumably based on geological basis, but that does not figure in the geographic usage which is geo-political.

As ten years ago I participated in a prior bit of madness by a rather similar banned sockpuppet Mariam83, I will proceed to editing now. --collounsbury (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the topic of the Canary Islands, one has to be a very special kind of blind to ignore geographical and topological data that asserts the observable fact that they're part of the African continent, African plate, and the North Africa region. No matter what the learned Collounsbury states about the UN regions for Africa, had they actually visited the website on https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ (as they themselves suggest), they'd realise that the list of countries that form part of North Africa according to the UN for statistical purposes is a geopolitical list that cannot include the Canary islands since they're part of Spain. Heck, that list doesn't mention the Canary Islands as a country or area belonging to any world region because they simply aren't a country! The list also omits Ceuta and Melilla from the North Africa region (in fact, they don't appear on the list as part of any UN region whatsoever) because they're not sovereign nations (they're also Spanish). And yet, nobody in their right mind would contend that this means Ceuta and Melilla are not geographically part of North Africa, since they're actually located on mainland Africa.
But hey, what do I know, this is just another example of how Wikipedia favours the editor's own views rather than scientifically observable and accepted facts. The contradiction between Collounsbury's claims and the Wikipedia Africa page speaks volumes about the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia as a whole. 5.148.51.52 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan?[edit]

Is it really an unadulterated fact that Sudan is part of North Africa? Shouldn't that be in the Sub-Saharan Africa article? 41.245.142.30 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, socks of Mariam83 pop up every few months to say the same thing. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from that remark, do you not feel that if multiple people are bringing this up, that there may not be something valid in it without merely saying "Yeah..." ? If one looks at the geography/climate/fauna/flora/culture of Sudan we see that it has far more in common with say Chad or Uganda than Morocco or Tunisia. Likewise the population is far more like that of a Sub-Saharan nation than a Southern Mediterranean one. Having read the archives, from what I understand, it is only because the official position of the USA that "Sudan is in North Africa" that it is included here. Meanwhile actual North Africans feel otherwise(as was made clear, sometimes with vulgarity), and the satellite images, fauna, flora etc etc would suggest that Sudan is NOT North Africa. So the question then becomes...Is wikipedia merely a projection of US propaganda, or is it an independent and unbiased factual resource? 41.245.142.30 (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sudan is part of the Northeast África(with Etiópia, Somaliland, etc...) and not North África(populations Berbero-Semitics). Northeast África(Sudan, Etiopia, Somalia, etc...) is majority Etiopoid/Camitic/afro-arab populations in the etno-historic factors. Only North/Northeast Sudan is North Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.252.107 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UN document [1] is the basis of the article and there Sudan is Nort Afrika.--Stone (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the UN is a corruptive organization, not have legitimity..sudan is sahel.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.33.193 (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan is not classed as being in North Africa by the people of North Africa. Mrmisr (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sa e problem as your belief that the tern Nile Valley excludes Sudan despite the sources. We go by what reliable sources say, not editors' opinions. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been questioned too much, and I believe it should be in the Sub-Saharan Africa article. 2.5 Bobux (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It appears that the UN Statistics Division is the only principle source that includes Sudan in its North Africa definition. It is not included in the definition of the African Union, the World Bank or the Encyclopedia Britannica. This issue should probably be re-addressed. Iskandar 323 (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan not is North Africa[edit]

Sudan is Northeast Africa(Subsaharian Africa of the Northeast). North Africa are the North-Berbero-Semitic peoples("caucasoids"), and Sudanese people not is Berbero-Semitic(Sudan is a Afro-Arab country and not a caucasoid nation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.79.94 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but sudan is still lumped in with north african countries ,i dont consider sudan as north african either because sudanese are black and sudan is a sub saharan african country, but its not what we think now is it,it's what reliable sources say--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the colour of Sudanese or their 'racial' make up has fuck all to do with whether Sudan is "North African" - there are black, 'Negroid' Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians of unquestionable North Africaness (and in the instance of the Maghreb, genetic and archaeological suggestions that some of these populations are not related to the slave trade, but predate antiquity). The identification of the populations of North Africa by linguistic filiation says fuck all about their race - "caucasoid nation" is meaningless 19th century claptrap.
Second, climate is not a defining factor in geographical regions as such. The Maghreb, a clear part of North Africa, to take an example, has multiple climate zones - one can not in fact speak of a "North African" climate - there are climates that cover North Africa, in the plural. Sudan, like Mauretania and in fact any of the Sahara straddling countries, presents ambiguities. Sudan is both partially Saharo-North African AND sub-Saharan. More than one thing. Such categories are merely analytical ones of convenience and not things that exist as platonic ideals. Get over it. (collounsbury (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Sudan in dark green??? Sudan is light green in the map with Mauritania(Mauritania too have DNA of the North Africa and not is Dark green in the map, because Sudan is diferentt of Mauritania?? why??

QI prove of Sudan not is North african:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IQ_by_Country.png

North Africa = Dark purple(middle QI) and Sudan/Subsaarian Africa = light purple(small QI)!! This is a neurological prove!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.174.61 (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups black 52%, Arab 39%, Beja 6%, foreigners 2%, other 1%

Sudan is a subsaarian country(52%) and not a north african/arab/berber country(39%)!!! Sudan is Sahel(transition) with Mauritania!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.174.61 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The very name "Sudan" is a giveaway as to what region it belongs to. 41.245.185.66 (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people think that Caucasnoid and White are interchangeable but it is actually a misconception. Caucasnoid, Mongoliod, and Negroid are actual races. Black and White are just colors depending on how much melanin a person has in their body and are misconceptions of the definition of race. The native North African were said to have dark skin, but were Caucasians. The why European thought that they were White because when they examine skull it was Causcasnoid skull. There is also the melanin dose test on the ancient skeltons to see how much radiate off of their body. Also just because the majority of people who live in Sudan are black does not mean all of them are and the classification of a person being black differs in varies countries—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.83.173 70.144.7.15 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)(talk) 03:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UN document [2] is the basis of the article and there Sudan is Nort Afrika.--Stone (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the UN is a corruptive organization..!this classification not is scientific; it´s a pseudoscience of obscure interests.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thread only employs scientific racism as fact to “disprove” a GEOGRAPHICAL region. I have a hard time believing any of you are North African, if so, you are very Westernized. I am Maghrebi. It only takes a quick survey of any academic journal on geography to politics in order to discern Sudan as Northern. In fact, a basic understanding of history (Berlin Conference of the 1800s) would show you that today’s Egypt and Sudan were one. Additionally, there are geological and epigraphic samples to look at if you were genuinely interested. Quit dragging 4chan discussions into what should be an encyclopedic reference for the generally curious. You will realize that English Wiki, unlike others, is the only one with this questionable mapping of North Africa. Itaren (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan proof?[edit]

Is anyone having reliable proof that Sudan is North Africa, and not in Sub-Saharan Africa, or else it should be removed. Yes. 41.245.148.16 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UN document [3] is the basis of the article and there Sudan is Nort Afrika.--Stone (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan is Sahel and not North Africa[edit]

  • And the South Sudan is Central Africa..!!
The UN document [4] is the basis of the article and there Sudan is Nort Afrika.--Stone (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While, the UN document may be the basis, the climate, geography, fauna, flora etc show Sudan having far more in common with Sub-Saharan Africa(where people do not speak ebonics) than with North Africa. In addition while the Northern part of Sudan is technically in the Sahara region, the largest population clusterings are in the tropical South of the country. That so many people regard Sudan as NOT being part of North Africa can not be dismissed with one UN document. Likewise, while it is not acceptable wikipedia evidence, I have friends who come from Algeria who most certainly do not consider Sudanese to be "like them". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.179.120 (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, said UN document has a broad "East Africa" designation, in which both Ethiopia and Somalia on the one hand, and Zimbabwe and Zambia on the other are lumped into this category. Does anyone honestly believe that Somalia and Zimbabwe share any similarities despite both being on the continent of Africa? EVERYTHING about these two states is different, linguistically, biologically, geographically, climate, fauna, flora, etc etc etc. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that Zimbabwe is in east Africa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.179.120 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara Case and Flag[edit]

Western Sahara is a territory and not a country. It's actually administered by the kingdom of Morocco. The presence of Western Sahara in the table is definitely justified if the term TERRITORY is associated to Western Sahara. The flag associated to Western Sahara is presented here as if Western Sahara is a sovereign country while it's not according to the UN. The flag put beside Western Sahara is the flag of the separatist faction Polisario Front claiming independence of the Western Sahara and backed in Tindouf south Algeria. My proposal is to mention "Western Sahara territory" without flag. That's exactly what the UNHCR is mentioning in its official website.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sudan 2[edit]

sudan not is north africa; sudan is sahel..UN is a corruptive organization and ilegitime - pseudoscientific..only north sudan and northeast is north africa; central, south, southwest sudan is northeast of central africa.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and mauritania is north africa..northern tchad, northern mali, northern niger, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan[edit]

Today South Sudan separated from Sudan and became a sovereign state. The map should be updated to include the border between Sudan and South Sudan. Thanks. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is South Sudan part of North Africa? It is not in the sources, I know technically it is, but politically, culturally, etc it is most def not.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but the U.N has decided to put it in North Africa region, which doesn't make sens. Tachfin (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
South Sudan is now a part of East Africa. 203.46.37.2 (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan[edit]

Is South Sudan actually part of North Africa? Sudan was/is listed as North Africa, but surely not South Sudan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.117.234 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan and Mauritania[edit]

Sudan and Mauritania are Sahel, NOT North Africa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.16.212 (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan[edit]

While Sudan is definitely part of North Africa, I don't think South Sudan can be, geographically or politically, considered in North Africa. I've removed this from the article. 203.206.101.76 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spain[edit]

Should the Spanish areas geographically in North Africa, next to Morocco, like Ceuta, be added to the article? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

add to article[edit]

Past and Future Population (Exclude Western Sahara)[edit]

Rank Country Area 1950 2000 2050 2100
1  Egypt 1,001,450 21,198,000 65,159,000 137,873,000 200,802,000
2  Algeria 2,381,740 8,893,000 30,639,000 55,445,000 61,060,000
3  Morocco[1] 446,550 9,344,000 28,114,000 42,027,000 40,888,000
4  Tunisia 163,610 3,518,000 9,508,000 12,181,000 12,494,000
5  Libya 1,759,540 962,000 5,025,000 8,971,000 8,144,000
Total 5,752,890 43,915,000 138,445,000 256,497,000 323,388,000

Land and Water Area (Include Western Sahara)[edit]

This list includes dependent territories within their sovereign states (including uninhabited territories), but does not include claims on Antarctica. EEZ+TIA is exclusive economic zone (EEZ) plus total internal area (TIA) which includes land and internal waters.

Rank Country Area EEZ Shelf EEZ+TIA
1  Algeria 2,381,740 126,353 9,985 2,508,094
2  Libya 1,759,540 351,589 64,763 2,111,129
3  Egypt 1,001,450 263,451 61,591 1,265,451
4  Morocco 710,850 575,230 115,157 1,287,780
5  Tunisia 163,610 101,857 67,126 265,467
Total 6,018,890 1,418,480 318,622 7,437,921
  • Comment Western Sahara shouldn't be inlcuded as a part of Morocco. Only Morocco and the United States recognise Western Sahara as a part of Morocco. 203.46.37.2 (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defining North Africa and adding relevant information[edit]

The creation of this discussion is directed at user @Ryanoo: who consistently reverted this article back to its former poorly sourced state over a mapping dispute. User @Ryanoo also said the information I added to the page (academic journals, published books and academic webpages) were “totally wrong” without countering my information with edits of equally verifiable sourcing.

The map I added was the orthographic map that is in common use throughout Wikipedia’s available languages. In dark green, the mao features Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and the Western Sahara. In lime green (to signify the Sahel) Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad are featured. As the article formerly conceded before Ryanoo’s biased changes (cited a government website of the United States, an online dictionary) there are contentions around what defines North Africa.

I fail to see how a map that features the Sahel in a different colour with countries that are apart of the Maghreb (Mauritania) and were once apart of Egypt, sharing the same bio climatic aridity (Sudan) violates the statement.

In good faith, I added reasons why the Sahel were vital to how Arab geographers like Abdelrahman es Saadi, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Battuta and 19th century explorers mapped the region as they did: trans-Saharan trade routes, Islam and Ottoman expansionism. Previous versions of the article will show that I did note a difference between North Africa and the Sahel. Additionally, I cited an academic journal to explain why North Africa is associated by some with West Asia. The article once said that it was “culturally” the same as well as other things without saying that “MENA/WANA” are geopolitical regions.

I am trying to facilitate a civil discussion about the content of this page so both myself and Ryanoo can move forward and that English proficient Wikipedia users can benefit from a well sourced article.

Edit:

I'm editing this page again because I am new to Wikipedia and didn't know I needed to sign the post and how to format my references.

References are the following: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Itaren (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC) Itaren (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would editors please note that it is not wikipedia's role to define North Africa, but to report what reliable sources say. I don't believe there is one correct answer, and there is certainly no higher authority on the subject to turn to. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 06:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Roxy the dog: ! In my defence, I added to the Wikipedia article what a reliable source had to say (An atlas of the Sahara-Sahel source) about the issue. I thought the quotation was vital to the article. User Ryanoo did not contribute in a way that was civil, reliable or verifiable to the article. This isn't meant to be a jab at them, but, is simply what my impression was during our disagreement over the page. Not everyone you disagree with is a sockpuppet! Itaren (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Itaren First of all, you didn't include any sources which shows that Sahel African countries are part of North Africa and your sources has nothing at all to do with what you claim. Secondly, Neither North Africans nor anyone on this planet nor Sahel African themselves considers Sahel to be part of North Africa, you are simply just desperately trying to push some biased nonsense which exists only in your imagination!!!. Sahel is clearly not located in North Africa, It is geographically a transition zone between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa and the people living there are totally different from North Africans in every aspect and Sahel Africans themselves are quite aware of this fact. North Africa is clear as the name itself, It is simply the countries located in the northernmost of the African continent, It isn't the whole African continent!!! Ryanoo (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the world organizations such as the World Bank, US Census, African Union itself, FAO, Population Reference Bureau, WTO and I can list tons of other world organizations if you want consider North Africa to be only the Mediterranean countries located in the extreme northernmost of the continent and I have never came across any organization which consider Sahel as part of North Africa!! and If you did, so please provide your sources. Thirdly, you turned the page from North Africa page to Sahel Africa, You deleted so much information very related to the topic and added so much irrelevant information, It seems that you have mistaken the North Africa page for African Sahel!!!! Ryanoo (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, Sudan was never one country with Egypt, neither do Chad with Libya nor Mali with Algeria, the aforementioned countries were just occupied by North African countries during some periods of time, they were mere colonies and the local Sahel didn't welcome the North African colonizers at all such as Sudan which still celebrates their independence day from Egypt till today. Britain have occupied many countries, but that won't make those countries part of Britain or make the people there British. For instance there is mutual historical influence between Morocco and Spain but that won't make Spain a North African country or vice versa. Should we consider Morocco a South European country because it has historic links with the Iberian peninsula??!. If you feel that there is a North African influence on the Sahel African which had been colonized during some periods by North Africans, then the right place to talk about this is African Sahel page. Ryanoo (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My References:

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 13:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Ryanoo (talk)

You seem to be very angry about this topic @Ryanoo:. I would like to remind you that the AU, WTO and so on see the world through geopolitical regions and not those that are true to geographic accuracy alone. My sources prove me plenty enough, you simply bothered not to read them -- that much is abundantly clear. If you did, you wouldn't have said something as objectively false as Sudan not being a part of Egypt during the classical period of imperialism. Again, please research the Berlin conference. You can also consult multiple academic journals. I would also like to, since we are in part discussing colonization, direct you to read up on Spanish North Africa, Mauritania and the Western Sahara were its former territories. That one is self-evident. As I said in the editing history of the article, I added a section on the Sahel because trading with countries located between the Sahara and the Sahel were instrumental in how Arab geographers and 19th century European scholars mapped out the area hence influencing how we see North Africa today. States located in the Sahel have also been exhaustively talked about on this talk page, that should tell you that it is important enough to at least mention in the article. I also never once said that there was any sort of population replacement in North Africa. You are putting words into my mouth to stir up some sort of impassioned response from me on this topic because you are frustrated that no academic source can attest to your claims.
The reason why I removed such a significant portion of the first part of the article was because it was unsourced. I really feel like I'm continuing to repeat myself with you. I am not changing the page from a North African one to a Sahelian one. No, we should not consider Sahel apart of North Africa -- if you read my article in earnest you would have seen that I wrote: "The distinction between North Africa, the Sahel and the rest of the continent is as follows:" and added the quotation from "An atlas of the Sahara-Sahel : geography, economics and security" which was published in a journal. All I did was add verifiable references crucial to understanding the borders of what is "North Africa" in the form of states that are conducive with the bio-climactic and historical information readable from my sources. If this idea is too outlandish for you to be based in fact, you might have to assess your own biases that may be preventing you from engaging in a good-faith discussion. As I informed you, I intend on letting Wikipedia's Administrators know about all this so they can determine what is permissible in the article per Wiki's rules. If they decide my information is credible, I may as that they protect the page as I'm not sure about how you might react given your past insults directed at me.

Itaren (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Itaren LOL you are clearly the angry one here, you are angry that you even don't know even what you talking about:). Again you are talking pure nonsense, It seems that you didn't bother to read even one word from your sources which neither has anything AT ALL to do with your claims nor the topic of the page!!!, as I said before you just trying to push some very biased nonsense which exists only in your imagination by making fake propaganda, again it is North Africa page not African Sahel. Now after I refuted your claims, you are trying to insult, attack me personally and threaten me as expected :). Ryanoo (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you I am Egyptian and I know my country and region history very well, It seems that you really know nothing at all of what you are talking about. Berlin conference resulted in forcing Mohammed Ali of Egypt to give up his colonies in the Arabian Peninsula, Levant, Crete and Greece and just keep the colonies of Palestinian Gaza, part of Libya and Sudan. Sudan was a mere colony which was invaded by Egyptians in 1820, go research the Egyptian conquest of Sudan (1820–1824). The Egyptian army during that era occupied all Levant, parts of Greece, most of Arabian peninsula, Sudan ( which didn't welcome Egyptians at all and made many revolutions) and was was about to occupy the capital of the Ottoman Empire without the eventual intervention of Great Britain and European countries ( Berlin Conference which forced Mohammed Ali of Egypt to give up most of the colonies) but that wouldn't make any of the countries Egyptian or part of Egypt during that era. As for your reference to geography, I am really speechless :) I would like you to bring the world map and check which countries are located in the northernmost of the African continent :), it is simple as that, in fact every sentence you say contradict the other :). Again, If you feel that there is North African influence on the Sahel African which had been colonized during some periods by North Africans, then the right place to talk about this is African Sahel page not here. Anyway, I am going to file a sock-puppetry report against you today and the decision is entirely up to Wikipedia administration, In fact I was planning to report you for sock-puppetry yesterday, but unfortunately, I didn't have time. Ryanoo (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2

Nothing about your Egyptian heritage @Ryanoo: is unfortunate for me. I'm Mauritanian, however, I did not bring it up as it is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article itself. See? I withheld a personal / empirical "fact," this is how discussion and the construction of articles should go. I'm not afraid of investigation, as I have nothing at all to hide about my activity. I stand by my past comments on the article edits and here in the "talk" section. You, however, were warned by myself and @Roxy the dog: to refrain from insults, misusing wikipedia's rules around vandalism and what you claim to be sock puppetry. I may not be knowledgable enough about all of Wikipedia's fine print but even I am aware that sources must be verifiable and it's not enough to ramble on about information you cannot back up credibly. Since you don't have the intention of remaining civil with me, I refuse to engage in anymore conversation with you on this topic.
Edit: I'm open to discussing this with any one else interested! I really enjoy good faith historical and geographic discussion. As for the above user Ryanoo's claim that the Sahel was "colonized" by North Africa (poor use of the term colonization as it refers particularly to the economic exploitation of peripheral lands for the benefit of a typically more "developed" economy, when the relationship I outlined was trade partnership) -- it's unsubstantiated which you can see in my references yourself. I'm also not trying to detract from the "North Africa" topic as this user accused but explaining who, when, and how the bounds of North Africa were created which so happen to coincide with the Sahel (multiple dynasties, trade routes, cultural exchange, ethnic groups, Ottoman occupation). North Africa on wiki seems to be contentious but we are here to voice our verifiable points and meet each other halfway for the benefit of English Wiki users worldwide. If anyone wants to work on a well sourced map from a blank page (remove Chad and Niger from the orthographic map) that would also be welcome :)

Itaren (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment - inclusion of Sudan[edit]

There is currently a lack of consensus as to which countries the geographical descriptor of North Africa should include. This region is messy, with the Maghreb, Northwestern Africa, Northeastern Africa and Middle East regional groupings all overlapping. One question that has been discussed extensively on this page in various forms, but lingered unresolved for decades, is whether to include Sudan. At present, the principle source that includes Sudan in its definition of North Africa is the UN Statistics Division, which uses the UN geo-scheme as its basis. However, the African Union, World Bank, Encylopedia Britannica sources and others exclude it. Sudan is also included as part of Northeastern Africa and the Sahel group of countries, and, in some sources, as part of East Africa. Again, it is principally the UN Statistics Division that excludes it from East Africa. Should Sudan be included in North Africa? Please comment below. Iskandar 323 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you are looking for a be all end all definition to North Africa but the sources do not offer it. they instead offer contradictory opinions that either include Sudan or don't. However this is Wikipedia. It's not our place to decide whether Sudan is in North Africa or not. But that's what you are looking for. We would be creating original research to do so.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Serialjoepsycho: Ah, well perhaps I could have phrased the proposition slightly better. I suppose the question could also be outlined as: should Sudan be considered as part of North Africa in terms of the working definition of this page? I.e.: Should Sudan be discussed in detail on this page? OR, should it be noted at the top of the page that Sudan is included in some but not most definitions, and then proceed on that basis? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point of my above comments is what do the sources say? You mention that some include Sudan. Without some major overriding justification there's no reason to exclude.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (summoned by the bot): if reliable sources differ on whether Sudan is part of North Africa, our article should reflect this. For example, the lead can mention that some sources include Sudan but others don't. The map can use different shades to distinguish countries that are included according to different sources, as we do in other articles such as Southern Africa. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI agree with Mx. Granger and -Serialjoepsycho- if reliable sources differ on whether Sudan is part of North Africa, we shouldn't be making a judgement, our article should reflect this differing viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah that's pretty much what I said.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, again. sigh. We already include what various reliable sources say, and note that some sources differ. I personally do not believe that the article requires any surgery, or rebuilding, as our job is not to define, but to report what reliable sources say. Read the rest of this page to see this same discussion happening time and time again. (and me saying the same thing) -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 15:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ It excludes the population of the disputed territory of the Western Sahara (the so-called Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. If it was included, the Moroccan September 2014 census would result in 33,848,242 inhabitants and its mid-2015 demographic projection would give some 34,198,000 inhab.
  2. ^ Mattar, Philip (June 1, 2004). Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Macmillan Reference USA. ISBN 9780028657691.
  3. ^ Bossard, Laurent (2014). An atlas of the Sahara-Sahel : geography, economics and security. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. ISBN 9264222340.
  4. ^ es Sadi, Abderrahman; Leroux, Paris E. (1898). Tarikh es soudan.
  5. ^ McGregor, Andrew (2001). "The Circassian Qubbas of Abbas Avenue, Khartoum: Governors and Soldiers in 19th Century Sudan" (PDF). Nordic Journal of African Studies.
  6. ^ "North Africa and the African Transition Zone". University of Minnesota.
  7. ^ Güney, Aylın; Gökcan, Fulya (February 2012). "The 'Greater Middle East' as a 'Modern' Geopolitical Imagination in American Foreign Policy". Geopolitics.
  8. ^ http://www.west-africa-brief.org/content/en/six-regions-african-union
  9. ^ https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/technotes_e.htm
  10. ^ http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/mena/overview
  11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_North_African_Football_Federations
  12. ^ http://www.fao.org/neareast/en/
  13. ^ https://www.prb.org/2012-interactive-world-map/
  14. ^ https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/maps/64374.htm

Mauritania should be added on the map (green colour).[edit]

Mauritania is not on the map? 2A02:27B0:4B04:8870:CCF8:2A17:F843:E004 (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sudan should be added on the map. It is a part of North Africa, as per the United Nations geoscheme. 203.46.37.2 (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence redundancy[edit]

The current first sentence reads, North Africa, or Northern Africa, is a region encompassing the northern portion of the African continent.

This form is against guidance of MOS:REDUNDANCY,

Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article [...] If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? M.Bitton (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think including the Sahara desert would be more helpful because it provides the reader a widely known point of reference. Also, it is common to use the term Subsaharan Africa. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an improvement. The Sahara is just a region in North Africa, it doesn't define it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is an improvement. I think it is self evident that North Africa or Northern Africa is a region and I have no idea how it is helpful saying that Norhern Africa encompasses the northern portion of the African continent. I mean, what other portion would it encompass, the southern region? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not that self-evident (given its use in the dictionaries). M.Bitton (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reference is called for. Besides, dictionaries are infamous for many times using redundancies and circular definitions. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#The dictionary definition trap,

A good definition is not circular, a synonym or a near synonym, overly broad or narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. When a descriptive title is self-explanatory, such as history of Malta, a definition may not be needed. See also fallacies of definition.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionaries were mentioned in a specific context (to prove that the claim that it's "self-evident" is not a fact). The latest policy that you cited doesn't apply in this instance as there is no singular accepted definition for the region. You don't need to convince me that the lead sentence may or may not need changing as I don't mind either way (that's why I asked you to suggest something), but if it needs changing, then it cannot be with something worse.
Unfortunately, what you're proposing is WP:OR and misleading, but worst of all, it contradicts the common definitions that are stated in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We just think very differently and disagree with each other. But interesting. You think that North Africa doesn't contain the Sahara desert? Do you think saying that "North Africa, or Northern Africa, is a region that contains the Sahara Desert." is original research? Do you think the Sahara is not in North Africa? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about what I think. Although there is no singular accepted definition for the region, most RS describe North Africa in terms of the countries that it contains. M.Bitton (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a proposal to mirror said definitions in terms of the countries it contains? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there, starting with The most common definition ... M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing it to be in the first sentence? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current lead is fine as it introduces the reader to the region's location as well as the fact that there is no singular accepted definition for it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it is fine we disagree. It simply means it is time to request more input from other editors. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @JacobTheRox, Thebiguglyalien, and Novem Linguae: for consensus. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78: why did you ping those editors in particular? M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Because they are members of the WikiProject Lead Improvement Team. Not forum shopping. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78: That's not how we seek consensus. If you want input from the community, then you don't cherry pick who to ping and who to leave out. You can either ping all of them (though, in this case, since you're a member of that project, I'm not sure that's appropriate), ping all those that have contributed to this article recently, advertise the discussion in the relevant boards or start a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the dispute resolution process. I pinged them per WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, "if you cannot resolve the dispute through discussion with the other editor, you may request participation from uninvolved, interested editors to build consensus for your changes". They are not involved and I haven't even had much interaction with them if any, if that's your concern. I randomly pinged them, I didn't cherry picked them. I have just posted a request of input in the wikiproject page. Assume good faith. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are involved since you're all members of the same project. It's about doing things properly (faith has nothing to do with it). In any case, I suggest we start a RfC to put this to bed once and for all. Suggestions on what it should include are welcome. M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Involved in the context of consensus means being involved in the discussion. Another thing would be canvassing editors favorable to one opinion. being in the same Wikiproject doesn't mean people there share one's opinions, as you may be aware. In fact, discussions often form in wikiprojects with various points of view.
If you want to make an RfC I suggest making a simple question of A vs B versions.
Version A: North Africa, or Northern Africa, is a region encompassing the northern portion of the African continent.
Version B: North Africa, or Northern Africa, is a region that contains the Sahara Desert.
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a RfC with the options that you suggested. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recommend pinging folks for something like this since it looks too much like canvassing. Leaving a message on a WikiProject talk page is fine though and is probably the best way to do it. Like you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lead Improvement Team#Input requested first sentence North Africa. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I understand your point. Problem is that in small wikiprojects the situation might be that no one is watching the talk page. Then activity dies down. Pinging in my opinion is another way of reactivating the project. Not that I ping to often to irritate members too... Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't been well. Currently the lede is ridiculous. It is currently "Northern Africa is the North of Africa". This is clearly against redundany policy. For example, the lede of human digestive system is not "The human digestive system is the system of digestion in humans". I think it should be "While there is no common consensus on the specific geographical location of northern Africa, it is sometimes defined as stretching from the Atlantic shores of Mauritania in the west, to Egypt's Suez Canal in the east." or similar. Remember that the lede of an article doesn't have to start with the article name. JacobTheRox (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that redundant is often misunderstood as a synonym of repetitive, but they're not identical. The difference is subtle but important, and since I've gone into more detail about it at the Rfc, I won't repeat that here. What I will say, is that I agree with you that it's essential to determine if the term is well-defined or not; if is is, one could simply list the countries or geographical features that correspond to agreed-upon usage. If it's not well-defined, as your example suggests, then one could sketch out the majority viewpoint (if there is one) and some of the alternatives. Some good articles to look at for ideas are Eastern Europe and Mitteleuropa. (There's also Central Europe, but I'm not too crazy about the lead sentence there, which leaves me feeling I haven't learned at thing.) Maybe an even better example might be Northern Europe, which has a matching adjective, similar vague definition, and (imho) is similarly often avoided in favor of other, more well-known alternatives. Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the lead sentence[edit]

This RfC is so poorly formed that it seems impossible that any consensus would arise from it, regardless of how long it runs. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Which of these two sentences best describes North Africa? 23:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  • A. North Africa, or Northern Africa, is a region encompassing the northern portion of the African continent.
  • B. North Africa, or Northern Africa, is a region that contains the Sahara Desert.

Survey[edit]

  • C. It should be: North Africa (sometimes Northern Africa), is a region....
Neither A nor B, but C, because OR-ing them like that implies an equivalence which does not exist. In fact, North Africa is about 17 times as common as the alternative. No opinion on the "Sahara Desert" part of it. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A "region encompassing the northern coast of Africa" might sound less redundant. Senorangel (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but encompasses doesn't define it. Most people wouldn't think of the Sahara desert as on "the northern coast". I.e., it's imprecise. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Northeastern United States or Western United States are better examples to follow. Senorangel (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Mathglot that using "or" equates "Northern Africa" with "North Africa". As for the rest of the wording, I recommend simply combining both A and B. I don't know whether to call it C or D.
North Africa (sometimes Northern Africa), is a region encompassing the northern portion of the African continent and much of the Sahara Desert. pillowcrow 20:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. What about:

North Africa is a region encompassing Northern Africa and much of the Sahara Desert therein.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see a RS describing North Africa in terms of what it encompasses (all of the Atlas Mountains, part of the Sahara, the southern part of the Mediterranean coast, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sahara desert is recognized as a landmark around the world. It is mostly a feature of Northern Africa as it covers much of it and is its most notable geographic characteristic (at least region-wide). Therefore, I think it should be in the first sentence.
I concede that MOS:LEADREL states, According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.
What is your proposal? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant and WP:OR (feature wise) because this article is about North Africa and not the Sahara (which has its own) or any other feature or landmark. In other words, I disagree with the inclusion of the Sahara in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you didn't read the second half of my comment... Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think mentioning WP:OR about info of the first sentence is misguided. Reason being is that there is more latitude in providing info in the first sentence than in the body of the article. Per MOS:LEADCITE, The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. This in combination with MOS:LEADREL, Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.
I consider the Sahara being one of the most notable geographic features in North Africa is a basic fact that would be helpful to include in the first sentence. I know you disagree; therefore, in this case, because of your objection, MOS:LEADCITE also states, The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found reliable sources.
North Africa is a region encompassing Northern Africa that is mostly covered by the Sahara Desert.[1][2] Thinker78 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cherry picked sources that are not not subject don't have much weight. What you consider to be important is just your opinion. When I think of North Africa, the Sahara is the last thing that springs to mind because I think not only of what it means today to some people, but also to what it meant throughout its known history. If it helps, I can also quote a scholarly source that describes it as a region that is situated between the Sahara Desert and the Mediterranean Sea.
As for you question, I agree with Mathglot: "northern Africa" is not synonymous with "North Africa", and it therefore, should either be removed or at the very least have "sometimes" added to it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Sahara desert.
  1. Those are reliable sources. I chose them from the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
  2. "What you consider to be important is just your opinion." Yes, this is a discussion, you have your opinion, I have my opinion, others have their opinion. That's usually how discussions work.
  3. Regarding Northern Africa vs North Africa, I think User:Mathglot was not saying they are not synonymous but rather that they are not equivalent in the degree of common use they have: "In fact, North Africa is about 17 times as common as the alternative." Simply bolding without using connective words like "or" or similar is not stating how often it is used, but simply it is a way to avoid redundancy so we don't end up saying North Africa is the region of North Africa. But what is your take? What is the meaning of Northern Africa?
  4. Regarding your source, check the map. Is your source saying North Africa is only the small strip of land between the desert (in yellow) and the Mediterranean? If so, it appears to directly contradict the sources I found and what currently is stated in the article Sahara, "The desert covers much of North Africa". Also, it doesn't seem to fit with the article List of regions of Africa. Regards,
Thinker78 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my source, it's a scholarly source. The fact that it contradicts the sources that you provided is one more reason why the Sahara shouldn't be included in the lead.
On the other hand, that's my map. M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice map. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I drop my suggestion about the Sahara being in the first sentence. But I still think we can do different than providing a semi-redundant and repetitive first sentence. We can take the hint of MOS:FIRST, If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.
This is another proposal,
The region of North Africa borders the southern Mediterranean Sea, opposite Europe. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Sudan and Western Sahara do not border the Mediterranean. Senorangel (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A longer sentence minus Europe can sound more definitive. The region of North Africa consists of states that border the southern Mediterranean Sea, adjacent territories that border the Atlantic Ocean or the Red Sea, and several nearby islands. Senorangel (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds nice to me. It certainly provides a better description and idea to the reader than the current first sentence. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton@Mathglot@Pillowcrow@Shazback@JacobTheRox Thinker78 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's precise, and it avoids the Sahara complication. pillowcrow 18:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Mauritania considered part of North Africa or only sometimes, like Sudan? Senorangel (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the article it is not mentioned. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as an improvement and I have yet to come across a single RS that describes North Africa as such. Essentially, this description makes it needlessly complicated for someone who's not familiar with the subject to actually visualize where NF is (which is the whole purpose of the sentence). M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C. I agree with Mathglot's suggestion (just reiterating this as I already mentioned it in the above discussion). I strongly oppose the inclusion of the Sahara in the first sentence (again, this has been explained). Equally, given that we state in the lead that "there is no singularly accepted scope for the region", I don't see how the inclusion of any specific definition in the first sentence can be justified, especially if it departs from the most common definition that is listed in the following paragraph. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Implemented Senorangel proposal. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
eraser Undone Please wait for the RfC closer to decide what to do next. M.Bitton (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What closer? Did you request this to be closed? Per WP:RFCCLOSE, Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.
I pinged you. If you had concerns or objections it would have been appropriate to respond to the ping. I was trying to determine consensus before implementing the proposal. What is your objection that you reverted? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't, but you're welcome to do so. The editors that are involved (such as yourself) are not the ones who determine what the RfC consensus is. What was proposed in one of the !Votes can to be discussed once this RfC is closed. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I simply saw the discussion had run its course and simply took action as in any other discussion. Again, I pinged editors who participated and no one replied. I waited a week to see if someone would reply and no one did. Then I simply assumed no one had objections to the proposal and I implemented it.
Per WP:RFCEND, When an RfC is used to resolve a dispute, the resolution is determined the same way as for any other discussion: the participants in the discussion determine what they have agreed on and try to implement their agreement.
I don't know if you had the chance to look athe RFCCLOSE guidance I shared in my previous comment. No outside assistance is needed to determine consensus unless it's needed.
In addition, please check the policy section WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You shouldn't revert randomly just because. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from throwing irrelevant jargon at me. This RfC was started because of you, so now you wait until it's properly closed by someone other than you. 21:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia guidance is not irrelevant jargon, it's what editors should attempt to follow. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat again: as someone who is involved (actually, you are the cause of the RfC), you simply cannot decide what the consensus of the RfC is. Is that clear enough for you? Discussing an !vote doesn't constitute anything (that's why I and I suspect others ignored your ping back then). If you have yet another thing to suggest, then you wait for the RfC to close or you can start a new discussion about it if you wish. M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly state opinions without citing any relevant Wikipedia guidance. Please share with us relevant Wikipedia guidance instead of only your opinions. I already mentioned relevant guidance that you dismiss as jargon in favor of yet your personal opinions. That's not how things work in Wikipedia. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to cite what I expect everyone to know. If you're not familiar with the word involved, then you most certainly are in position to lecture anyone about how Wikipedia works. M.Bitton (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RFCCLOSE, if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion.
I interpreted a consensus clear because,
  • Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change.
  • I pinged everyone involved in the discussion more than week after User:Senorangel made their proposal for first sentence.
  • No one made a comment about the proposal nor objections made.
  • I waited a further week.
  • By that time it was more than a month since the start of the RfC
    • Per WP:RFCEND,

      • An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be.

      • There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the {{rfc}} tag) 30 days after it begins

      • But editors should not wait for that. If one of the reasons to end RFCs applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course.

        • One of the reasons to end the RFC was if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion.
        • Another reason to end the RFC was was The discussion may just stop, and no one cares to restore the {{rfc}} tag after the bot removes it.
Per WP:WHENCLOSE,

if the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work, then there may be no need to formally close the discussion unless the process (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) requires formal closure for other reasons.

Per WP:CLOSE, There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion.
Per WP:RFCCLOSE,

If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.

  • Given that no one objected to the proposal of Senorangel, I didn't consider the matter contentious.
As I mentioned in the talk page of User:M.Bitton, now that they made their objection known and raised such issue about this, I advised "the way to go is making a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests". Thinker78 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said what I had to say and see no reason to repeat it, let alone read your wall of colourful text, so please stop pinging me. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion[edit]

  • Question Looking at MOS:REDUNDANCY wouldn't this be a good article to not start with the article name? Something like The northern portion of Africa is often consided to be a distinct region of the continent for geographical, historical, linguistic and political reasons. Shazback (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Shazback, I've taken the liberty of moving your comment to the "Threaded Discussion" section, as it seems pretty clear it's not a !vote. If you disagree, feel free to move it back, but I think it works better here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, that is an appeal to elegant variation and a wrong interpretation of MOS:REDUNDANCY. This is not like the awkward wording in the Mississippi river flood example at MOS. Here, I believe MOS:LEADSENTENCE should guide us:
    • The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
    The point I'm trying to make is that Option A is repetitive, but not redundant (i.e., "superfluous", "unnecessary", "inessential") because "in the northern portion of Africa" (or similar) is essential information. In this case, in order to comply with the what suggestion from MOS:LEADSENTENCE, non-redundant repetition is essential to make sure we accurately convey what the topic of the article is. For a more detailed treatment of the tension or difference between redundant and repetitive see this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for moving this to the appropriate section
    I agree that noting that it refers to a region in the northern portion of Africa is essential information (if only to differentiate from South Africa and clarify that it is not a political entity).
    I do not think it is appropriate to note that it contains the Sahara Desert in the lead when Sahara appears to contradict this. The article on the Sahara states and maps that the Sahara covers large parts of Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Western Sahara, Sudan and Tunisia. Further noting that "important cities located in the Sahara include Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania; Tamanrasset, Ouargla, Béchar, Hassi Messaoud, Ghardaïa, and El Oued in Algeria; Timbuktu in Mali; Agadez in Niger; Ghat in Libya; and Faya-Largeau in Chad." Whereas this article as of the current revision has one mention of "Mauritania" outside of the country statistics table, and no mention of Mali, Niger or Chad at all. The current lead map also does not highlight these four countries.Emphasis mine in all text in this paragraph
    Afterwards it is a question of style. My personal preference is for lead sentances that are a bit more informative than, say Eastern Europe "Eastern Europe is a subregion of the European continent.", but this is just a personal preference and not in scope of the RfC nor worthy of one. Shazback (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nace, Trevor (9 Nov 2017). "We Finally Know Why Northern Africa Is One Of The Driest Places On Earth". Forbes. Retrieved 3 Oct 2023.
  2. ^ O'Hare, Maureen (21 Dec 2016). "Snow falls in Sahara for first time in 37 years". CNN. Retrieved 3 Oct 2023.
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.

Mauritania[edit]

The article includes Mauritania, but the map does not. Previous discussions seem divided. Senorangel (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Africa&oldid=1222705316"