Talk:United States of Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeUnited States of Africa was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 16, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

BBC source[edit]

Text removed as copyright violation from this BBC article: United States of Africa?. However, it's a good reference for the basic story. has some good material and links, as long as it's not quoted verbatim. African Union and Pan-Africanism are relevant. Tearlach 19:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

July summit[edit]

There is this from Al-Jazeera on the status of the recent AU discussion if anyone wishes to expand: Mikebloke 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - moved without discussion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move -- Aervanath (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved this article to federal Africa on the basis that hardly anyone had written anything on the talk page. Can I propose though that the move is carried out again, on the basis that "United States of Africa" is just one (improbable) name for a federal Africa. Sory again for violating WP:MOVE. YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I would object to another move on the basis that just one editor seems to think "that 'United States of Africa' is just one (improbable) name for a federal Africa." If this is not simply a POV edit by YeshuaDavid, where are the citations to back it up?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I accept it is POV to claim that the name "United States of Afica" is improbable, but I stand by my argument. I think its worth noting that the African Union itself talks of a "united and integrated Africa" here and the BBC deliberately prefers the phrase "pan-African state" here. To be honest, I felt the move would be fairly uncontroversial given that the article on Federal Europe was moved to its current name from United States of Europe, and in line with WP:BOLD. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a move is appropriate. The capitalisation of the current title implies a specific proposal, as opposed to a general concept. I think federal Africa is an apt description of this concept, without implication as to an eventual official name, such as United States of Africa. Though perhaps federated Africa might better impy the potentiality of the subject. ENeville (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just done some major editing to this page. Much more remains to be done. YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


Any additional comments:

While a number of the article's cited sources use "United States of Africa" as a rhetorical device, this one gives both historical and contemporary usage of the term by proponents of such a union. — AjaxSmack 06:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


  • Oppose No properly argued reason for changing from the Google-approved "United States of Africa" to the virtually unknown "Federal Africa". Sorry about that!---PJHaseldine (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Per above arguments and sources. Also note "United States of Africa" will evidently get more google hits as a result of searches for the "United States" and "Africa", ie: relations between the US and Africa, etc. YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sources in the article seem to indicate "United States of Africa" is the most common name for this idea. TJ Spyke 03:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggest Political union of Africa, which would be a descriptive title, and not needing to figure out the suggested name for it. (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Also support Political union of Africa as a descriptive title. YeshuaDavid (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - generally, per my comment above. ENeville (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The African Union uses "United States of Africa" to describe the proposed government. ARSchmitz (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ready by 2017[edit],%20says%20Wade

A few sources from February 2009 said there's about 20 nations ready to begin right away but they want to wait until 2017 and include Caribbean nations with African populations. A group will be set up January 2010 to begin the 7-year process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewM (talkcontribs) 18:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. However, despite Gaddafi's claims, the Carribean nations are quite unlikely to be interested. This article still needs a lot of work. YeshuaDavidTalk

How many countries in Africa?[edit]

I've read different answers: the AU page says there are 53, exluding Morocco, however the Africa page (including Morroco) says it comprises 53 also. Both seem to include Madagascar. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I worked out that that's because the AU counts Western Sahara among its membership. However, Western Sahara is not a sovereign state, so 53 countries in Africa stands. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC Article misleading - Does not belong here[edit]

The BBC article titled "The United States of Africa?" is not actually referencing the US of Africa, it's referencing the creation of the African Union. The BBC used the US of Africa in the title because it's exciting and sensational. But, years later, it's now inaccurate.

As a result, the regional conference in 2000, should be removed, as it's creating the African Union, not the US of Africa.

ARSchmitz (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarified it a bit, but it could still be improved. YeshuaDavidTalk • 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-published article[edit]

I added a paragraph within the 'Differing Views' section. Unfortunately, it's from a (well-cited) paper I wrote myself. Therefore I've already marked it as [self-published source?] and am blatantly pointing it out here for discussion.

The added content discusses why there's opposition to the United States of Africa, instead of just listing which nations are for/against. I feel this adds a lot to the article, and is definitely a positive addition. If someone else added the content, it probably wouldn't be an issue, but it's self-published material, and is subject to the Verifiability pillar of Wikipedia. I would prefer the reference stays, because (in my opinion) it improves the article with a well-cited, neutrally-written, secondary source. And lets face it, there's not much out there... If there was, I wouldn't even dream of adding my own work. But, that's why I'm making this obvious to everybody who cares. And, of course, no hard feelings if you all decide it needs to go. ARSchmitz (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in using a self published source as a reference. It was good of you thought to make it obvious that you, as a Wiki editor responsible for adding the reference here, have made that explicit though. --Discott (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States of Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)