Talk:Africa/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What?

"great instability, however, was mainly the result of marginalization of other ethnic groups and graft under these leaders"

What? This statement smacks of ridiculous and historically inaccurate assertions. African leaders CAUSED instability of many African states due to the marginalization of OTHER ethnic groups? This makes absolutely no sense, and appears to blame Africans for the state they are in. Someone clearly wrote that the scrable for Africa by European states resulted in instability, and this statement is clearly a contradiction and should be either edited or removed.

The "graft" part may have more credibility but still seems to need more historical fact, even under this section. - NickSmith2007

The passage quoted is talking about postcolonial Africa. It seems to be talking about leaders from one ethnic group marginalizing people from other ethnic groups. Did this not happen? Certainly, the article should not blame anyone for instability in Africa, which would be an opinion, but merely report facts. We can, of course, report opinions from notable researchers on the subject, if we can do it in an informative way. - Nat Krause 07:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cause and effect in African economies

Africa was the poorest region on earth in the pre-independence period and had the lowest levels of investment. The article seems to imply that the lack of wealth is due to the actions of incompetent/corrupt governments even though the economic argument is against that point of view. For example, without the energy generation capacity to enable their exploitation, natural resources do not help a nation's wealth very much. Additionally the import substitution strategies that the wealthy economies used to help their development are not available to African governments. The poverty helps fuel corruption as people feel there is not enough to go around and of course that then worsens things further. Rather than the cause of Africa's poverty, the corruption and mismanagment is an effect. I have not made a change yet as I would like some opinions/discussion first as this is my first contribution. Sez who 03:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a very hard to argument to maintain. Some African economies post independence had very good runs of growth (e.g. Cote D'Ivoire which grew annually at 6-8% 1960 to 1985). But when these economies went wrong it was almost always down to issues of government not poverty. Also the comment on natural resources is hard to maintain. Nigeria has an income of many billions from oil but it does not trickle down well. --BozMo|talk 09:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The causes of the state of Africa's economy could be debated ad infinitum. I don't think there is any consensus amongst economists either on the cause or how to fix it. With this in mind, I think the section would be better served to just describe the state of the economy and maybe a single paragraph listing the various causes people ascribe. A thorough treatment of the causes and the debate would be better in a separate article. Ashmoo 05:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, persistent national poverty is attributed to (in no particular order) resource dependence, corruption and unequal trading partnerships. The word persistent is important as the historical causes of national poverty are of course "historic" for want of a better word. The criticism of African economies/leadership is not to do with them ever having been rich or even in a strong position. It can be summarised as "South Asia and Latin America which are also poor (although historically somewhat richer) have increased their contributions to world trade whilst Africa has not. This shows that there is a problem within African economies/governments." There is no economic scenario whatsoever in which modern day Africa could be anything but very poor given the state of the economies at independence. The criticism is that they could have maintained their positions relative to the rest of the world or even improved slightly eg from the poorest region to second poorest by undergoing a record number of years of record growth. To illustrate, take China's historically unprecedented rate of growth and add a further 60% overall to become second to last on the poverty scale. The following provide some summarisation of the theories involved in persistent poverty: Moore, M (2004)The Nation State and Globalisation, International Political Science Review 25:297-319. Pritchett, L (1997) Divergence Big Time, Journal of Economic Perspectives 11:3-18. Uslaner, E (2005) Economic Inequality and the Quality of Government, Dept of Govt and Politics, Univ of Maryland. As it stands, the article doesn't describe Africa's economies so much as make a political statement. Firstly, mention the dependence on agriculture and natural resources ie raw materials in terms of foreign earnings . Secondly, include something on the changes in the world economy that depressed the prices for raw materials then link the two items to the economic colony concept (no this is nothing to do with politics). Third, corruption worsens the poverty since already scarce financial resources are not used efficiently or fairly fueling instability and conflict. Fourth, some mention has to be made of the shift to the utilisation of information/knowledge technologies in generating wealth and the effect this has on any nation without a reservoir of expertise in this area. Fifth, as another contributor pointed out the invisible economy in Africa is actually larger than the official one. This is not a new or even controversial statement, the only controversy is how great the difference between the two is. Since this is a characteristic almost certainly unique to Africa, it deserves mention. There has to be some way of incorporating economic reality into the section Sez who 05:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Off Topic on what you guys were talking about...

But in the Russian version of this page there is a freakin' gigantic map. I don't know if it is really necessary to use up all that space. It does look good though :)

Thanx for informing us. I fixed it (no more than 300px).-- Svest 17:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

the real economy

When dicussing Africa's economy, westerners often make the mistake of ignoring parts of the economy that do not involve monetary transactions. In fact, much of Africa's economy consists of subsistence farming, which amounts to considerable production of food but is invisible to the GDP.

For example, a subsistence farmer who grows their own food, gets many useful materials from a nearby forest, and gets clean water from a stream has a relatively acceptable quality of life but makes no contribution to the GDP. If the forest is cut down and the wood sold, but streams will be polluted, the land ruined and the people deprived of forest products that they once received free, but because cash transactions will have occured, this will be exponetial growth in the eyes of economists.

Commonwealth vs. American spelling

There was recently a change to Commonwealth English, which was promptly changed back to American spellings. It would seem to me that the former should be preferred here. Most African countries that have English as an official language have British colonization/-sation in their past, and use British spellings. Liberia may be the only African nation to prefer American spellings, though I don't know if that's true one way or the other. Before we change back to BrE, though, I wanted to see if anyone has any objections, and if so, why. --BrianSmithson 15:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Support - I agree most english speaking african nations perfer the British spelling than the American.--Jcw69 10:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support While it is difficult to assess and impose a form of English for use in encyclopedia articles with global reach (and this coming from a Canadian, whose English has American and British influences), the British historical influence in Africa – not to mention the 18 African countries which are currently members of the Commonwealth, and where English is a major language in some – would be sufficient reason to use Commonwealth English here and to override other considerations. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 05:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Why is this even an issue? Just revert back to Commonwealth spelling. Americans usually dont make a big deal about it (I was about to say something mean about their president, but I didnt) – probably just someone using the wrong spellchecker. --Ezeu 08:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support per Ezeu and Anthony. Smmurphy 08:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Belated support, which also covers British dating formats. dewet|™ 11:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Brian. BTW, voters: let's not vote too soon. — mark ✎ 09:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't exactly call for a poll; I just asked for any objectors to speak up. In other words: They started it. :P --BrianSmithson 12:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there: soliciting feedback and reaching or IDing consensus is at the heart of Wp. All the power to you! :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bounty for Africa country article

See Wikipedia:Bounty_board#An_African_country. I've thought for a while now that I should chip in a bit to the upkeep of the Wikipedia servers, and the new "Bounty Board" system seems a good way to do this while also creating a small incentive for editors to work on Africa country articles. I've pledged £15 (~US $25) to be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation for the next Featured Article on an African country. Currently we only have South Africa, so I'm hoping someone will take me up on this. Also, if anyone else wants to commit a little to increase this bounty, please feel free! — Matt Crypto 16:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds great, when do we push for another african country and which one?--Jcw69 17:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Africa's persisting problems?

Specifically AIDS and corruption, both of which NGO's and news agencies report on all the time as having the potential to wipe out masses of people? The fact is you can't talk about Africa these days without bringing in these topics or them being relevant somehow, so I find it strange that this wiki article completely avoids them. People wanting to get a real sense of what the social situation in Africa should be apprised of this if this wiki article is to be at all relevant to Africa in any way that really matters. --Atrahasis 05:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Population

It seems that both the Africa and Europe articles lay claim to second most populous continent. Which is it? Smmurphy 22:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Europe article was chaned from 'third' to 'second' within the last 15 minutes, by the same user who tried to change this one and got immediately rv'd here (but not yet there)... ፈቃደ 23:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Africus for COTW

I've nominated Africus for COTW. I did this because I felt that the Roman god who is directly responsible for the name of one of our present-time continents deserves more than two lines for his article. If you would like to support, please go to its COTW page and write your name down on the support list. -- SoothingR^(pour) 15:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

African Economies

I did not add further links to my comments in October because I am used to thinking of certain issues in my professional capacity rather than in a more generalist way. 1) I stated that African economies were as an average the poorest on earth before independence See: The State of Africa by Martin Meredith either the introduction or the index provides a brief guide to gdp sources. 2) There seems a mistaken perception that natural resources bring wealth unless grossly mismanaged as in "Despite a vast array of natural resources, Xland remains mired in poverty..". Even though it seems counterintuitive, it doesn't work that way. See: Outgrowing Resource Dependence by Will Martin (2002) then simply put "resource dependence" and "Dutch disease" into your search engine and enjoy (ignore the organisations and their environments articles). 3)Nigeria's oil revenue figures are available and yes the political system is phenomenally corrupt. Saying that, the amounts involved couldn't run our local municipal services let alone the whole country. See: ias.berkeley.edu/africa/Events/OilHR/Nigeria%20Factsheet.pdf. 4) This is too long already so I'll wait for a response. Sez who 20:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dark Continent reference to Africa....

I think Wiki should have a reference to this:-

Using a quick Google search I found the following references:-

http://www.answers.com/topic/dark-continent http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dark+Continent http://www.bartleby.com/61/96/D0029600.html Amazon.com: Death in the Dark Continent: Books: Peter H. Capstick Amazon.com: The Dark Continent : Europe's Twentieth Century (Borzoi Book): Books: Mark Mazower by Mark Mazower. The New York Review of Books: In the Dark Continent

This expression has become so pervasive in English, that it is now synonymous with the word "Africa" (in fact it is used in the place of the word Africa in the titles of three (3) books above).

You may want to read the following for a discussion I've already had:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FayssalF

   - Reversion of "Dark Continent" entry.

Where could this reference be included? Thanks for any help, ~~JohnI~~

semi-protection

I proposed the article for semi-protection feel free to support or oppose the request there. ---moyogo 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Africa / Asia

Until recently the article stated that "Egypt was considered part of Asia by the ancients, and first assigned to Africa by Ptolemy". This was recently replaced by an anonymous contributor who created the alternative assertion that "Ancient Africa extended into what is now known as Asia". Both these statements are, I think, misleading. "Africa" originally referred to an area to the west of Egypt and "Asia" originally referred to Anatolia and eastwards. Egypt and the Levant were not in either "continent", nor were the continents clearly defined in the modern sense. Both statements have elements of truth. It's true that Egypt was not originally part of "Africa" and it's true that no dividing line existed between what we now call "Asia" and "Africa". But it would be as true to say "Ancient Asia extended into what is now known as Africa" as to say the opposite. Implying that "Africa" was the concept that "extended" has POV implications. This is all about whether Egypt is considered "African" or not - a modern obsession to do with ideas about differentiating Arabic/Islamic and African/Black identity. It really has little to do with the realities of ancient models of geography. Paul B 15:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked up on this and have qualified my alterations. It seems that the original sentence was more accurate, but needed expansion. The point is that Greek terminology uses "Asia" as roughly synonymous with the Persian empire. There is no land-break between Anatolia, Palestine and Egypt, and from the Greek point of view there was a broadly continuous flow of countries to their east and south, encompassed by the term Asia. Of course this also means that Ethiopia would have been vaguely "Asian" too in this mind-set, but I doubt that there was any clear definition of the terminology. Paul B 16:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature: Congo Region and Middle Africa

Today I created the article Congo (region) mainly because I felt that it was missing from Template:Regions of the world. Only afterwards did I discover that Congo already exists, but that this article seems to restrict itself to dealing solely with the two Congos, and not the wider, vaguer subregion. What is the preferred option now: should Congo me merged with Congo (region) and redirect to Congo (disambiguation) instead? Please have your say here. Thanks.

And a related issue: I would argue that the UN designation Middle Africa - which currently redirects to Central Africa - is the least ambiguous name for the region, as listed at Template:Africa, just like Southern Africa is used to effectively disambiguate from South Africa. Please respond here. Thanks! // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 10:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern Africa

I'm going to go ahead and delete this section under history of Africa. Currently all it states is that China is investing more money these days into certain African countries in order to gain natural resources and then lists the countries that China is investing in. This is TOTALLY inappropriate for a section on modern history and is completely random. Why was China even mentioned? If theres to be a section on which African countries being invested in by China then there has to be a section for which countries are being invested in by every other country which would be ridiculous. --The Way 18:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Territories section

This section had a long listing of territories by geographic area and political status. Right below that was a table which repeated the same information. I have removed the listings in favour of the clearer presentation by the table and the notes below it. That has removed about 3KB of superflous text. Green Giant 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold! No real argument ... and such duplication has been brought up elsewhere too. I was reticent about nixing the list because it has some details (regarding sovereignty/political status) that, if carried into the table, I feel would overload it. Moreover, the countries are arguably in other 'subregions' of the continent (e.g., as per various dictionary defintions); however, there's no rhyme or reason to the prior scheme and the UN scheme is an accurate, systematic, yet neutral way that is increasingly adopted to categorise territories in Wp (e.g., all continents have tables with territories split according to the UN scheme).

Apropos, I will tweak the images and copyedit to reflect the table/changes. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Your very welcome. Just to highlight my edits and their reasons, I have also moved all the images to the right because it looks ugly if the text has to twist and turn around the left side images. The main article links have been replaced by the {{main}} template. Two particular issues have become apparent to me which are relevant to the nomination for a good article status. Firstly the text is grammatically and spelling-wise excellent but there are far too many short one/two line paragraphs. Ideally the the text should be condensed to form longer paragraphs. Linked with this is the need for a longer introduction, perhaps incorporating a sentence or two about the history, languages or current political status.

The second issue is there are no inline citations which could be used by a reader to check where editors had obtained the ideas from. Without them it looks like original research which is not a good portrayal of an otherwise broad and factually accurate article. The list of external links is not a good substitute for thorough citations. The single text listed under references should be accompanied by at least four or five more general texts to give a greater breadth to the section. I will try to help with these issues but I thought it would be helpful for you all to note them before submitting for FA candidacy. Green Giant 00:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement! :) The images to the right look good and I'm all for pruning and enhancing content ... including the addition of some refs (which I can do in the near future). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to disputes over the neutrality of "Post-colonial africa"

I belive that it is referring to this little tid bit, "African states have frequently been hampered by instability, corruption, violence, and authoritarianism." While unfavorable to africans and descendants of africans, and there are exceptions in some areas. It is unfortunatly for the most part, true. We are trying to open up human knowledge to the public, not create suger coated lies to make people think otherwise.

Pre-colonial politics

I have removed the content in this section, which read:

In the mid nineteenth century European and particularly British explorers became interested in exploring the heart of the continent and opening the area for trade, mining and other commercial exploitation. In addition, there was a desire to convert the inhabitants to Christianity. The central area of Africa was still largely unknown to Europeans at this time. David Livingstone explored the continent between 1852 and his death in 1873, amongst other claims to fame, he was the first European to see the Victoria Falls. A prime goal for explorers was to locate the source of the River Nile. Expeditions by Burton and Speke (1857-1858) and Speke and Grant (1863) located Lake Tanganyika and Lake Victoria. The latter was eventually proven as the source of the Nile. With subsequent expeditions by Baker and Stanley, Africa was well explored by the end of the century and this was to lead the way for the colonisation which followed.

That doesn't seem particularly relevant, so I have replaced it with a stub more closely focused on pre-colonial political structures. Humansdorpie 15:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not relevant under the politics header, but it is certainly relevant to Africa, fairly well written, and not terribly objectionable as far as I can tell. I think it should be reinserted under a more appropriate header, like "Precolonial exploration", this could be created as a subheader of History, which needs a subheader... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done: I thought someone might find a home for it if I dumped it here - Humansdorpie 16:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As an African, I have a problem with the general notions of explorers, exploration and discovery. I take offense to being considered almost like a lost animal species, that was discovered by the mighty Europeans. And even the notion of lost animal species in Africa, is problematic. Because the simple fact of claiming that an animal species was discovered, implies that the animal had no prior encounter with humans. Similarly, the fact that History sources has a tendency to claim discovery of Africa, gives me the impression that those sources claim that we Africans were not humans, until we were "discovered" by Europeans; because were we humans, the implication would be that they were not the first humans there, therefore it was an encounter, not a heroic discovery, right? Just a thought. Themalau 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of continents

This doesn't so much concern Africa as it concerns Europe and Asia. But in the first lines of the article it says "Africa is the world's second-largest and second-most populous continent, after Asia.". Isn't it true that generally, Asia isn't considered so much as a continent, but rather as a *region* that is part of the continent Eurasia? Culturally Europa and Asia may be seperate entities, but geographically they are not. And continent is a geographical term isn't it? As for this article: shouldn't that first line go "second most populous continent, after Eurasia" ?? (RagingR2 22:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

Commonly, as most English dictionaries and compendiums indicate, Asia and Europe are considered separate continents/regions with a somewhat discernible boundary (e.g., the Urals). While numerous disciplines may have varying – and perhaps more appropriate – definitions/delineations (e.g., physiographically describing (Africa)-Eurasia as a single continent or supercontinent), all of these are to a degree conceptual constructs not limited solely by geography. Thus, based on prevailing definitions, the current statement is correct ... but may vary depending on viewpoint. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I get your point, and I think you have a good point. :) Indeed I think Wikipedia should best try to reflect the prevailing definitions. However, I think there is some confusion. By the way, I want to make it very clear that I am not trying to force upon this discussion my own POV's about the definitions of certain terms. But I think too many times on Wikipedia and in real life terms like continent, region and landmass are used confusingly. I think it is the ultimate goal of an encyclopedia to define and use such terms in a clear and consistent way, even if this is in a way that not every reader agrees with. (RagingR2 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

Great; Wp is most valuable when it incorporates varying points of view but they should be treated equitably (not necessarily equally), and this article no less so. Something which prevails in many sub/regional/landmass articles are the lack of source references; so, articles invariably succumb to POV-pushers in absence of them. For example, I've never seen reference to Central America as a continent, yet any number of editors insinuate this in said articles regarding the Americas. As part of a quest to nix such subjectivity from articles, I proceeded to at least cite authortative sources in the articles dealing with both North America and South America regarding their constituents. Similarly, most will indicate the same of the current topic, but you can't satisfy everyone all the time.

That being said, though, we are dealing with conceptual constructs which can vary from person to person ... and there's always room for improvement. Discuss, derive agreeable text and standards, and just cite along the way.  :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a slightly wider debate than just this article but I don't think the general definition of continents is geographical. geographically the Americas is one continent certainly larger than Africa but is considered to be 2 continents. And geographically there is no real distinction between Europe and Asia or really between Asia and Africa, SqueakBox 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are right, technically Asia, Africa and Europa could be considered as one single continent even though they are generally considered as three very different regions of the world (hence the existent of three separate names). Often, people say that Africa and (Eur-)Asia are separate because of the Suez Canal. Following that logic, the same would go for the Panama Canal and North and South America of course, but personally I think it's kinda strange to define two separate contintents just because of the existence of a relatively small, man-made canal. Personally, I think a canal doesn't change the fact that for instance Africa and Eurasia are one landmass. I mean, the canal is like what, 10 or 20 meters deep or so? One could hardly reason that such a canal *divides* the landmass in two! :)

About the definition of a continent: maybe I haven't read into the subject enough yet, but I always thought that continent is purely geographical, while in political and cultural terms it's more appropiate to speak of regions. Obviously, North and South America are two different regions, as are Asia and Europe. But personally, I feel that calling Asia and Europe separate contintents is causing confusion by using the wrong term. The border between Asia and Europa is purely cultural, politcal and historical. On top of that: it isn't even clear where the border is. Some say Russia is part of Europa while other say it's half Europa, half Asian, for instance. This debate is understandable since the border between regions is never very clear *because* it's purely cultural, and thus very subjective.(RagingR2 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

There are a variety of ways used now to conceptualize continents in the academic world, most do rely on geography. It's probably more correct to either view S. and N. America as one continent and Europe, Asia and Africa as one or view S. and N. America as two, Africa as one and Eurasia as one (which is the view I personally think is best). However, given that most people using wikipedia as a resource aren't from the academic world, per se, its probably best to use the most common definition which still holds that there are 7 continents. Hopefully that view will eventually change, but until it does I think it's best to use it, at least for this article. --The Way 07:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Africa was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, but has unfortunately failed. Reasons for failing GA:

1. Add "References" - these are required to pass
2. Use Inline Citation to link sources of information
3. Cut down on "External Links" - too many to be useful
4. List "URL Accessed date" on all website links, to show users whether websites are still active
5. Remove unnecessary templates at the bottom, the three bottom boxes could be synthesized into 2 or even 1 box

This article is close to completion but the bottom section is so poor that it brings down the whole article Highway 07:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

GA tags

I just removed the {{FailedGA}} tag on the top of the article. On 25 April, added the {{GAnominee}} tag was put on and four days later replaced with the failedGA, apparently after single-person review. Does anyone feel that this has added value to this talk or the article? It is readily apparent to me that this article is not feature-quality, and the to-do list at the top of this page that has been around for months actually gives actionable information. I admit to having thought that Wikipedia:Good articles was a neat idea originally, but after seeing this proposed policy in action for a bit I just find it distracting. Thoughts (besides that I should be worrying about something besides this)? - BanyanTree 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The tags indicating GA nomination and failure aren't important to me. I nominated the article, but bowed out after I saw the dispute tag on the article page. Of the two to-do lists at the top of this page, the list under "Failed GA" is shorter and seems manageable, but I didn't want to bother if issues were under dispute. The GA system in general seems like a good idea to me. Maurreen 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I had actually completely missed the #Failed GA section that was added under the TOC. I am still baffled by why general points in a new section would be considered better than updating and adding to the pre-existing to-do list, which points at specific areas of concern, but I appreciate that the GA folk's intentions are good. - BanyanTree 03:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your puzzlement. I initially missed the #Failed GA section myself. I saw the main list and thought that was too much for just GA. Maurreen 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Main idea of other continent's people about Africa

I think the main image people have about Africa (including me before taliking to a friend from Congo) is a quite wrong. I used to see Africa as a country with barely any technological development, like electricity, internet... Maybe this is the main missunderstanding and that should be fixed first of all. Any comment on that ? (answer at cyril.holweck at free.fr) CyrilHolweck 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I never could have said it better, Cyril. Frankly, the amount of ignorance about Continent Africa (atleast in Europe) is alarming -not to mention annoying- and, given the mordern technology here... You are right Cyril, This is the MAJOR problem that should be fixed. Check out "The Africa You Never See" on your favourite search engine prompt. You'll get a clear idea of what I am insinuating here. CodeLyric 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)