Talk:Sub-Saharan Africa

Child mortality rate

The line containing reference 18 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sub-Saharan_Africa&oldid=299767699#cite_ref-17 ) reads:

While in 2002, one in six (17%) children died before the age of five,^[17] by 2007 this rate had declined 5%.^[18]

The page linked to by reference 17 ( http://www.unicef.org/mdg/childmortality.html ) contains the following paragraph:

But progress in meeting this Millennium Goal is the most off track of any. In 2002, 7 of every 1,000 children in industrialized countries died before they were five. In South Asia, 97 of 1,000 children died before they were five. And in sub-Saharan Africa, that number is 174 of every 1,000 children.

The image linked to by reference 18 ( http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGLOMONREP2008/Images/4737993-1207068592331/MDG4-Figure-1-%28large%29.gif ) shows 158 deaths per 1,000 live births. Nothing in the image states that the data is for 2007 -- measuring the data points strongly suggests that the data is in fact for 2006.

I found a newer World Bank graphic ( http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGLOMONREP2009/Images/5924288-1240410208609/MDG-4.1-(small).gif , found on http://go.worldbank.org/ZI8SNQGU60 ), strangly the article does not mention the year the data is for (as far as I can tell), but measuring the data points strongly suggests that the data is for 2007. It shows 146 deaths per 1,000 live births.

OK, so the page says that the rate has declined 5%. The data is:

2002: 174 / 1000 = 17.4% = 1 out of 5.75
2006: 158 / 1000 = 15.8% = 1 out of 6.33
2007: 146 / 1000 = 14.6% = 1 out of 6.85

I can't figure out how this is in any way a 5% decrease. It is either:

(158-174)/174 = -9.2% (2006)
(146-174)/174 = -16.1% (2007)

Or (this would be more like "in 2002 it was 10.1% higher"):

(174-158)/158 = +10.1% (2006)
(174-146)/146 = +19.2% (2007)

Or perhaps:

15.8% - 17.4% = -1.6% (2006)
14.6% - 17.4% = -2.8% (2007)

The last option, -1.6%, makes sense if someone sees the percentage change (currently given as a 5% decrease), then scans backwards to quantify this change, and sees "17%", and decides that this means 17% - 5% = 12%.

OK, so there are two obvious changes to make:

• Link to the "real" 2007 data (rather than linking to 2006 data).

• Change the 5% decrease to something accurate.

What is less obvious to me is how to make it even clearer. Perhaps:

While in 2002, one in six (17%) children died before the age of five,^[17] by 2007 this rate had declined 16%, to one in seven (15%).^[18]

Better than the current version. I'm going to make that edit now.

Michaelrienstra (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

The phrase: "the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions of Africa have been separated by the extremely harsh climate of the sparsely populated Sahara" seems to lack logical consistency. It says that the Sahara is 'separated' from Southern Regions by... itself! Look at the syntax - it says: Sahara... separated by... Sahara.

FACT: The Sahara is the region that lies to the north of Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa is the region that lies to the south of the Sahara. So, they are 'distinct', but not 'separated'. In fact, far from being 'separated' they are 'joined'.

Editors should try not to insert areas of inter-stellar space into Chad, Niger and other countries.

Ackees (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Much of article duplicates Africa and subarticles

This content could be merged into Africa or subarticles, leaving a small article specifically on the term Sub-Saharan. --JWB (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Area

I think it would be useful to give a number figure for the area of Sub-Saharan Africa, and perhaps also a ratio to compare it with the total area of Africa. __meco (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion in Africa

Can someone please bring the stats in real terms to support the fact that East Africa has more Muslims than west Africa? Because the religion section claims only East Africa has many Muslims while the rest of Africa is dominated by Christians. Let me help you a little Chad, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, Mauritania, Niger. all with Muslim populations over 50% so how is Islam an exception in East Africa. The only part of Africa without large % of Muslims is Central and Southern Africa.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not continue to add original thinking based upon a map. I do not know anyone who uses a map to draw an encyclopedic conclusion about religion in Africa. CIA fact book et al. Is far more accurate. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The religion section does not claim that "only East Africa has many Muslims while the rest of Africa is dominated by Christians". That is absurd. It quite clearly states that "North Africa is strongly dominated by Islam, while Sub-Saharan Africa—with the exception of the predominantly Muslim Horn of Africa,[100] Sudan, Swahili coast, and the Sahel -- is mostly Christian or home to many traditional African religions." This is sourced fact, not original research. The parts of West Africa that are mostly Muslim are the northern, Sahelian parts. Soupforone (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source that says this, please bring the source into the research. So in West Africa they have North parts? is this not North Africa? Please use a source that can be checked to verify this until this is done a tag will be placed.

You forgot to fix this: In terms of religion, North Africa is mostly Muslim (shown in green), while Sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of the Horn of Africa,[100][101] is mostly Christian (shown in red).[102] this contradicts your new corrections. Sub-Africa has more Muslims than Christians, that is all you need to say, not a loop of exceptions to a pOV. Do the math and come back with real stats, that means numbers of percentages.

a source please refer to wiki policy of reliable sources. I.e. not pointing us to a map. the source must express the view you stated above.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's just it: Sub-Saharan Africa does not have more Muslims than Christians. It has more Christians than Muslims: "North Africa is predominantly Muslim while sub-Saharan Africa is largely Christian" (Encyclopedia of religious freedom, p.1). I also never relied on a map for that statement on West Africa. I merely stated that the map illustrates this fact. It is the source itself that I added which supports the established fact that it's the northern parts of West Africa that are mostly Muslim while the southern parts are dominated by Christianity: "Northern West Africa is mostly Muslim, while the south is mostly Christian" (The Kingfisher young people's atlas of the world, p.64). I have therefore removed your quantify tag, as the sourced statement above doesn't require it. Soupforone (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How do we know this if you will not quantify stop using original research and do real research and bring the percentages. Very simple. convoluted nonsense is not encyclopedic. More Christians or less, where is the numbers to prove it either way?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple. We know that Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly Christian and not, contrary to your beliefs, mostly Muslim because the quote I just produced unamibiguously says so. Again: "North Africa is predominantly Muslim while sub-Saharan Africa is largely Christian" (Encyclopedia of religious freedom, p.1). We also know that it's the northern parts of West Africa that are mostly Muslim while the southern parts are dominated by Christianity because of the second source I produced: "Northern West Africa is mostly Muslim, while the south is mostly Christian" (The Kingfisher young people's atlas of the world, p.64). WP:RS does not require me or anyone else to "quantify" anything; all it requires is a reliable source to back-up one's claims, which I have provided. There is no such policy as WP:QUANTIFY, and that quantify page you linked to is a disambiguation page, not a policy page. Kindly stop removing sources. Soupforone (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Expert required, this page lack cohesion and direction

This page in some parts makes sense but is running at a tangent with absurd unsourced claims. See above note on religion. See the lede, which has 5 references, none of which give the information stated. i.e. not in citation give. There is no mention of the African Union, which kind of has a strong opinion on Sub-Africa. there is no sensible structure. And the content seems like the pet project of a few editors, some of who have been proven in the past to have strong POV pushing agendas. here is an example from the lede. Many citations do not make content true. esp when those citations lead to [[1]] again, it is a case of not in source given. This is bad research at best. And when citing a book, do not expect us to run out and buy it, please summarize the content as opposed to saying "it says so on page 7", i dont know what is on page 7 of that book by Edward Geoffrey Parrinder. Lets get an expert to review this.

Sorry here is another problem to prove my point. The article is suppose to be on Sub-Africa. Yet most of the content eg. languages is about Africa, music, cuisine, etc etc. There is a section on economic unions blatantly including parts of "Arabia" and yet you are discussing Sub-Africa. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your issue is. You complain about the article apparently not being enough about Sub-Saharan Africa, yet gripe that the African Union isn't discussed enough. You do realize that the AU includes every country in Africa except Morocco? It is not just a union of all Sub-Saharan African countries; in fact, no such organization exists. As for the lede, it's quite well-sourced, so there's nothing doing here either. There is also no discussion of any economic union including parts of Arabia (as if that's a crime), blatant or otherwise. That is, unless you're referring to the rather innocuous asertion that "the OECD says Africa has the potential to become an agricultural superbloc". Soupforone (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Too many examples of bad sources, unreliable sources. Here is an example. "Marathons and long distance running have become a lucrative sport for Sub-Saharan Africans." is Kenya and Ethiopia Two countries enough for this statement? Even if you have a source it is a bad statement since it is not a generalization for Congo or SA, or TZ, or anywhere else. where is the source? The entire article is riddled with bad sources. The AU is needed as the AU does has an opinion on Sub-Sahara Africa which is critical to understanding the area you have defined. What role does the AU play in this sub-Africa? Because the AU talks a lot about Sub-Africa verse North Africa. Yet this opinion is excluded. I think you shoudl review wiki reliable source policy and report back on each source. is this a reliable source:

WP:RELIABLE

statement : he Horn of Africa and large areas of Sudan are geographically part of Sub-Saharan Africa, but nevertheless show strong Middle Eastern influence and, with the exception of Ethiopia, are also part of the Arab world. Isnt a semitic language spoken in Ethiopia, just like Arabia?

• http://www.arableagueonline.org/las/index.jsp (not in English and this is an English page)
• http://www.unesco.org/en/education/worldwide/arab-states (What does this page have to do with the statements in the lede?
• http://www.infosamak.org/english/countries.cfm Includeds Somalia in the map, but does not say anything about Middle Eastern influences. What about Chad which speaks Arabic? so it is confusing what this source is contributing to the lede.
• Ḥagai Erlikh, The struggle over Eritrea, 1962-1978: war and revolution in the Horn of Africa, (Hoover Institution Press: 1983), p.59 Not a source which can be verified
• John Markakis, Resource conflict in the Horn of Africa, (Sage: 1998), p.39 (cannot be verified, What is on page 39 we cannot check can we?)
• Randall Fegley, Eritrea, (Clio Press: 1995), p.xxxviii (cannot be checked, cannot be verified. you could almost use this to say anything you want since we cannot check it).

I would not go on, but the tag of unverifiable sources is thus warranted for the bulk of the article. I think you are of the opinion that "WELL SOURCED" means as many sources to give the illusion of good research. The references must speak specifically to the content and not be used to support original research. What exactly is Middle Eastern Influence? bring a specific source that says just that, a reliable source not 20 sources that cannot be verified.

The article needs a clean up and a review by an expert. All the sources need to be checked. If you are discussing Sub-Africa then you must stick to that discussion without jumping to discussions about the potential of AFRICA. This article is not about Africa, but about Sub-Saharan Africa. So define it, and work within that definition. WIthout using sources like "The potential of Africa (as a whole)". In lay English, the article must discuss the geography of Sub-Africa as distinctive or contrasted against that of North Africa.

--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Those arguments you raise above have already been addressed in an earlier section, including the sources you complain about. I do, however, agree that that phrase on marathons & Sub-Saharan Africans is unsupported. Much of the article was recently expanded by one editor in particular. He and I initially clashed because I believed the sources didn't support what he claimed with regard to demographic figures. But on closer inspection, the figures he provided seemed ok after all. Soupforone (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Soupforone, I will ask you again to be CIVIL and stop removing tags until this content is discussed. Because no one wants to waste time do research if you are deleting work without debate. It is against wiki policy. This is why you clash so much. Or why people on Wikipedia clash. So respect the work of others and use this page and the article will improve with joint debate, as per the rules of wikipedia. (esp reliable sources). Speak to the specific points I have raised because the sources are bad.

The policy on references does not hold up, regardless of who put them there. Find new sources and re-write the lede. ALSO. Do not explain a geographical term with another geographic term. Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly Islamic along the Sahel. Where is the Sahel? You have introduced another term. without clarifying anything. Nigeria is 55% Muslim.and the most populus African country, do the maths. Something is wrong in the conclusion. Even if Christianity is a majority then just bring the numbers. (am i asking too much?) All sources must be clean, that is my problem. What is Middle Eastern Influences? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure you understand the meaning of WP:CIV. That policy pertains to refraining from acting uncivil toward other edtiors, not to removing spurious tags like the ones you keep adding or to restoring sources like the ones you keep deleting. I have already explained to you that all of those arguments you raise above have already been addressed in detail in an earlier section, including the sources you complain about. Kindly refer to my comments in that section for your answers and read my direct quotes from the supposedly "bad" sources; they are not difficult to understand I think. As for your complaints regarding the Sahel, it is clearly explained in the article that "the Sahel is the transitional zone between the Sahara and the tropical savanna (the Sudan region) and forest-savanna mosaic to the south". The Sahel article is also linked to, so your question as to "where is the Sahel" makes no sense whatsoever. Finally, as already explained above, I don't need to quantify anything because there is no such policy or requirement as WP:QUANTIFY. All I need to do is produce a reliable source supporting my claim that Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly Muslim, which I've already done. By the way, it's the northern, Sahelian part of Nigeria that is mostly Muslim; the south is mostly Christian: "Northern Nigeria is mostly Muslim, southern Nigeria mostly Christian, and there is widespread practice of tribal religions such as animism" (Encyclopedia of nationalism, p.38). Soupforone (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion section is absolute not in sources given

Please show me Nigeria in this map which covers the entire Islamic population of Nigeria.

This is a more detailed map of religion in Africa

Now that is the Sahel,(see map) where is the Islamic Nigerian population located in this according to a SOLID source. Or do you need a map of Nigeria to help you? Please show me a link to a source that says this. The reader is coming to the section on religion he does not need another definition of the sahel to add to the already confusing def of Sub-Africa. So Before you add anything back answer my question.

• What percentage of Sub-Africa is Christian and what part is Muslim?
• Send me a link to Encyclopedia of nationalism, p.38 but did you read what was on page 43? and verify it before using it.
• Ethiopia is in the horn of Africa, and is a heavily Christian state, one of the oldest in the World. So do you need to write in another exception clause.
• Contrast the map of the Sahel with the Islamic Majority of West Africa
• An article needs clarity not a sub-set of exceptions to a POV rule you are desperate to prove. "SUb-Africa is a Christian continent with Muslims here and over there and under there, but apart from that, it is Christian." thats what you are saying.
• Wiki has a tag call quantify,
• When you use a reference you must use the information in the reference not the info in your head, and then say here is a reference which is and moreover and in addition

Please rewrite and do not add content which editors do not approve as encyclopedic. Because that is UNCIVIL and harmful to the quality of wikipedia. If I as an editor are asking for the above please address them as this page does not belong to you.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources, please prove them all

Source must prove they are reliable: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

Now none of your sources fit this criteria. I suggest you find new sources. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE any content or it will be seen as vandalism for your POV. Your sources are not verifiable per the content you have added. Do not self-judge yourself and attempt to put them back.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sub-African : Request for comments on Quality of this article

Editors are not following policy with regard to co-editing. POV pushing and reverting valid objections. One user in particular is not following policy on sources. They are quoting sources and then writing original research and drawing conclusions not in the sources given.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources & POV

Your "justifications" (if I can indeed call them that) for removing reliable sources are utterly absurd. This is especially true given the fact that what those sources state have already been quoted for you in no uncertain terms. Again, regarding religion in Sub-Saharan Africa:

• "North Africa is predominantly Muslim while sub-Saharan Africa is largely Christian" -- Encyclopedia of religious freedom, p.1 ([2])

The Horn of Africa (since you mentioned Ethiopia):

• "Men and women mix freely inside the EPLF - an astonishing phenomenon in the predominantly Muslim Horn of Africa." -- The Middle East, nos. 135-145, (IC Publications ltd.: 1985), p.13 ([3])

And the northern, Sahelian parts of West Africa:

• "Northern West Africa is mostly Muslim, while the south is mostly Christian" -- The Kingfisher young people's atlas of the world, p.64 (no Google books link to it, but you can verify for yourself on Amazon.com's book search [4])

Those are clear, direct statements supporting the edits. Yet here you are again fighting the issue as to whether or not Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly Christian with nothing more than your own words and a self-made map you yourself personally uploaded just today, and you have the audacity to accuse me of "POV"? That map doesn't even acknowledge that the various countries in Africa each have diverse religious constituencies and aren't all made up of either Christians or Muslim or adherents of traditional religions, as it chauvinistically and falsely suggests. To top it off, you invent a quote and then attribute it to me thinking you're somehow making me look bad (namely, "SUb-Africa is a Christian continent with Muslims here and over there and under there, but apart from that, it is Christian" - I never stated that), when in reality, you're only shooting yourself in the foot since part of WP:CIV is not attributing false statements to other editors. Furthermore, there still is no such policy as WP:QUANTIFY, and that page you linked leads to the Manual of Style, which is a guideline page, not a policy page. Only actual policies determine what an editor should and shouldn't do, and you've already violated quite a few. Stop removing sources. Soupforone (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)