Talk:East Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Africa Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

East Africa is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

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

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

Contents 1 Nomenclature 2 History - Imperialism 3 East Africa, proper 4 The map is a mess 5 For consistency's sake 6 Requested move

[edit] Nomenclature

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

[edit] History - Imperialism

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

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

[edit] East Africa, proper

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

[edit] The map is a mess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] For consistency's sake

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

If you can.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Requested move

South Africa is a country, the region is Southern Africa. Renaming this article to that of its current redirect page would create consistency among the designations for the regions of Africa: Southern Africa, Northern Africa, Eastern Africa, Western Africa, and Central Africa.

Withdrawn

The United Nations Office of the Special Advisor on Africa (OSAA) uses both forms.—Chidom ^talk  00:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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