Talk:Sahara/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bottom of the article

I am looking for information reguarding an program which is using the brackess ground water of the Sahara to support fish farms. The salty water is desalized and then used to support a tourist industry and agriculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveOntS (talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very bottom of the page there are bits of random information. Not to offend anyone, but it's written like an elementary school essay IE: Not very good. I would imagine that it's there by some mistake or as a joke, and I think it's safe to delete.76.27.55.64 (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Countries bordering the Sahara?

Is it possible to have a linked list of countries bordering the Sahara? I know Mauritania does, but don't know about others... --Tomhannen 08:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

list: MAURITANIA, WESTERN SAHARA, MOROCCO, ALGERIA, TUNISIA, LIBIA, EGYPT, SUDAN,CHAD, NYGER and MALI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.198.230 (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Arabic pronunciation of the word "sahara"

What we have a recording of is an arabic speaker saying the word for "desert" an arabic, which is usually transliterated "sahara". Is this what the Sahara desert is called in arabic? Or is this supposed to be the "correct" pronunciation of the English word "Sahara" (never mind that I don't think English contains either the h sound or the r sound that are used in that file)? It also means wilderness in the form of a name.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool having an arabic ogg file, but my friend the arabic speaker was immediately surprised that this was being listed on this page. --Andrew 05:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the Sahara in Arabic is as-Sahra al-Koubraa (the greatest desert). Sahara means either desert or 'wilderness' in Arabic, but generaly "desert." (collounsbury 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

History of Sahara and the origin of the word Sahara

The history of Sahara at those early times can be found here.

The word Sahara is of Arabic origin which means Desert in English. You can have a look at the List of English words of Arabic origin.

Svest 05:38, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well i hope nobody lies on this page cause many ppl use it for projects and stuff!!!!!!

person

Pronunciation

Look, the pronunciation file is not a recording of the name of the desert. It's a recording of the Arabic word for desert, from which the English name for the desert is derived. It would be misleading to give the impression that that's the correct way to say the name of the desert in English - the English vowels are all different, and the h in particular has a completely different sound. Perhaps unfortunately, the Arabic would normally be transliterated to look just like "Sahara". --Andrew 05:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

IPA rendering of the Arabic

I don't read Arabic, and I'm sure very few other people reading this page do either. Perhaps it would be helpful to put up an IPA transcription of the arabic word for desert instead of just having it written out in a script that means nothing to us? Guypersonson 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to a recording of the spoken word. Unfortunately, you will probably have download the utility to listen to it. – Donald Albury 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Asinine revisions

===>Let's be reasonable: 70.49.170.143, please don't put claims that directly contradict evidence in an article - that is confusing and useless to readers. Please also do not delete relevant sections without commenting on the Sahara Talk page. Please also do not insert childish diatribes with poor punctuation in the middle of an article. The web page referenced doesn't have a bibliography because it's just an abstract. Did you even look at this page? It's not racist to mention this study - please be reasonable. If you have a political axe to grind, feel free to consult some message board, this is a place for learning and fact. Justin (koavf) 16:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

look i sent you an e-mail about this the fact is that the study is a bunch of bs.. race does genetically exist and it is impossible to know what a person's race through looking at his gene code.

this is a fact http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1331319_1,00.html

secound that link claims to have examined one of the southern most parts of morocco in the sahara.Even if you were to agree with the so called study then you should know it is not talking about north africans but about saharans. who live between the two areas,the caucasian north african and black africa.Also morroco has different populations too like arabs,berbers,europeans and black sub-saharans so you can't pick 20 or whatever random morrocans.

Another thing morocco is a coutry that has a lot of different people like european looking people in the atlas part of and saharan people in the souss area that the article claims to study.

I don't have any political axe to grind i just don't want people to read this false info or should i say abstract info.Anything in an encyclopedia should have bibiography and not some abstract bs that anyone can write.

lastly race only exists on the physical level according to any bio or socalogy professors

i know this because i am a socalogy and bio student in university

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=10801

Europe, North Africa, western Asia and the Indian subcontinent, whose people have wavy or somewhat curly hair, sharp facial features (especially a narrow, prominent nose), and abundant facial and bodily hair

Please stop giving people mis information by using some site that does not give proof for what it says.

this is one of the reasons why many professors in my university don't accept internet sources as true sources when one is writeing an essay.

Every human being shares more than 99.9 per cent of their DNA with everybody else, and the tiny variations that remain differ more within ethnic groups than between them, a major review of the evidence says.

It is impossible to look at people’s genetic code and deduce whether they are black, Caucasian or Asian, and there is no human population that fits the biological definition of a race, the study found http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1331319_1,00.html

please stop giving false facts ok

thanks Posted by 70.49.170.143

The idea that population genetics is impossible is completely inconsistent with the facts. However, that the Souss Valley is scarcely representative of Morocco is a whole is certainly true - and no genetics study should ever be cited as if it were the last word on the subject, because (as I've seen at Berber) they frequently disagree with each other. The field is still young. - Mustafaa 04:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i think the human genome project and top universitys would have have facts straght and most university today teach what that article states. about it being impossible to tell a person's race through genes. so i think those are the facts. and i belive even some polical figures in the states have quoted this.

and even if it isn't just one study should be posted as fact here...

that is why i wanted that part removed... Posted by 70.49.170.143 at 06:37, Apr 17, 2005

Yesterday, in a special issue of the journal Nature Genetics, the published results of a survey of human variation as expressed in the human genome map conclude that race and ethnicity are no longer satisfactory categories for discerning differences among the human race. "It is impossible to look at people’s genetic code and deduce whether they are black, Caucasian or Asian, and there is no human population that fits the biological definition of a race, the study found."[1] Race and ethnicity are nothing more than culturally based forms of taxonomy. The study also concluded:

"The human genome map has shown that if two people of any ethnic origin are selected at random, only between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,500 of their genes will differ. This makes our species among the most homogeneous known to science: populations of chimpanzees and fruit flies differ much more from one another in genetic terms. A typical Caucasian’s genes will be as similar—and as different—to those of another Caucasian as they will be to a black African or a Chinese person."

http://www.newquaker.com/2004_10_24_blogarchive.htm

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9124-Gene_tests_prove_that_we_are_all_the_same_under_the_skin.html

science,regelion all these people are accepting the fact... Posted by 70.49.170.143 at 06:43, Apr 17, 2005

Identity of participants and style of editing

Hi 70.49.170.143! Your comments are very welcomed. However, they should be explained here and not in the main article. I see that you've stopped "commenting" there and that you are participating here instead. You may be right but everything needs to be discussed and agreed about before any major edits in the main article.

Another comment I have regarding your edits here is about the way they are structured. It is very hard to realize where your comment starts and where it does end plus that there is no identity information (no identity mark, no dates included) unless one goes checking on the history page; which is time consuming. I am sorry I got to fix that without your consent but it was for the sake of clarity. It would be very nice if you just add a note in order to help readers and participants find out about that fact. I would also suggest,-if you don't mind, that you get a Wikipedia account as probably you will be contributing from time to time. Svest 12:46, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Shipbuilding in the Sahara

There are facts about shipbuilding in the area in the Babalus period. I reverted the article to the last version indicating these facts. Please check out these references : Race and history, Physicsdaily.com. Cheers Svest 00:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Please refer to Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Check your facts for reasons why not any old website can be used as a serious source. Additionally, the content we are talking about has been added by Roylee (talk · contribs) in an attempt to lend credibility to all sorts of outlandish claims added to other articles. He has responded evasively to several inquiries of other editors questioning his sources and editing patterns on his talk page. Also, if you check out the links referred to above, you will see that there actually are no facts whatsoever about shipbuilding in this area. All we have are weak 'indications' and 'hints' that require a great stretch of the imagination (or indeed a pervasive Afro-centric bias) to serve as 'evidence' for shipbuilding in the Sahara. The theory is not notable. Anyone who wants to promote theories like this should keep them at his own website. Wikipedia is not the place for this. – mark ✎ 09:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Antarctica?

The opening sentence states that Antarctica is the largest desert in the world. I have not heard that one before and was under the impression that glaciers don't count as deserts. I know there are cold ice-free deserts in Antarctica but rather small compared to the glacier itself. Any thoughts on this? --Bjarki 23:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does nobody at all have a comment on this? Anyways, this piece of "fact" was added with this edit which is the only actual edit that the user has made (there are 2 other sandbox edits). With such a dubious source and the fact that I have never ever heard of Antarctica being referred to as a desert I am changing it again. --Bjarki 19:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I support you because you're right. – mark ✎ 19:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===>Antarctica is a cold desert See [www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/lessons/08/g35/antarctica.html here]. More sources here. It relates to precipitation. Justin (koavf) 21:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's a definitional problem at best, and the most common understanding of 'desert' does not only take precipitation into account but also things like temperature and climate. Simply put: people think of deserts as hot places. Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive, so I think it's reasonable to call the Sahara the largest desert. However, it might be a good idea to qualify the statement and say that the Sahara is the largest hot desert. – mark ✎ 21:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These links don't convince me of anything, there are hot and cold deserts and then there are glaciers, simply not the same thing. --Bjarki 22:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===>Hot/Cold deserts It's certainly true that colloquial understandings of deserts imply warm regions like the Sahara or Gobi. To quote from the article on desert:

That said, there are different forms of deserts. Cold deserts can be covered in snow; such locations don't receive much precipitation, and what does fall remains frozen as snow pack; these are more commonly referred to as tundra if a short season of above-freezing temperatures is experienced, or as an ice cap if the temperature remains below freezing year-round, rendering the land almost completely lifeless.

I'm all in favor of saying hot desert and linking Antarctica. Also, remember that Antarctica is not simply a glacier, and there is soil underneath the ice shelf - it has actual territory. Justin (koavf) 22:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going on a crusade for this, but I do disagree... glaciers are not deserts. I will leave it to you guys to find a suitable way to phrase the half-truth that will inevitably be the final outcome according to my experience of the wiki process. --Bjarki 00:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===>I don't understand Clearly, Antarctica is a desert. You're not actually offering any proof otherwise. Do you care to explain your position? Have you uncovered some meteorological research that supports Antarctica getting more precipitation? Justin (koavf) 04:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, my troubles swallowing a definition of a desert that includes areas made out of water are probably due to the fact that I'm thinking in a foreign language. --Bjarki 22:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't lose the point here. Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It's a bit like the naming policy: articles should have the most common title. Almost everyone thinks of the Sahara as the largest desert ('hot place'), only a few geographers who like to define 'desert' with reference to precipitation alone would want to call Antarctica the largest desert. I think Wikipedia should just say that the Sahara is the largest hot desert in the world. No need to clutter the lead with a confusing mention of Antarctica. – mark ✎ 00:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Wizzy…☎ 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy the precipitation bit. If that were so the Nile valley would also be desert. These geographers may have good reason to define desert in the way they do but until they can get their definition accepted Antartica should be mentioned as a desert only as an aside. For the time being most people mean by desert a place without water and that includes places where the water is locked up as ice.82.44.21.216 15:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Antarctica may have low precipitation but there is low evaporation so what falls stays there. Dejvid 15:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I found the following on Yahoo Answers:

What is the largest desert in the world? Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Sahara, in North Africa, is the largest non-polar desert covers 3.5 million sq. mi.

The polar deserts are larger. Antarctic - 5.5 million Sq. mi. Arctic - 5.4 million sq. mi.

So that would make Sahara the THIRD largest desert in the world. --Jibran1 15:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We've gone through this quite a few times before. The thing is that the most common definition of 'desert' doesn't take into account just precipitation, but also temperature. Like I said above: Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive, so it's best to use this common-sense definition of desert and leave the confusing mention of Antarctica out of it. To satisfy those people who insist on using that specialist definition of desert which includes the polar ones too, the first line of the article says "largest hot desert". – mark ✎ 15:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Climate

Yes, people discuss the climatic differences between hot deserts and ice deserts right here on the Talk page.

However, the article is lacking (IMHO) any relevant information on the climate in the Sahara. Important pieces of information, IMHO, apart from the fact that most of the desert is covered cool sand :-)

What's the average/peak temperature at day? What at night? How often does it rain? And how much does it rain, if it happens to rain? I mean, it's said more people die of drowning in the desert than of lack of water (yup, campers do get surprised by the sudden appearance of substatial amounts of water in wadis).

What about Fauna? And Flora?

Just suggestions on how to improve the article. IMHO. --Klaws 22:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nabta Playa

Can someone verify the edits regarding Nabta Playa ? I refer you to User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Wizzy…☎ 09:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have pulled the Nabta Playa part out pending verification, and I mean verification based on Reliable Sources. I know that Nabta Playa is a well-known archaeological site but there is no reason to trust Roylee's original research on this. Roylee's strategy is usually to cite sources from all over the internet, which when partly combined serve his POV and fit into his original research. Roylee has never engaged in productive discussion of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS policies despite being asked several times by several editors. I see the bulk of Roylee's edits as one of the most disruptive forms of vandalism to Wikipedia. – mark ✎ 09:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

America

The U.S is nearly 3 times as large as the Sahara (Sq Miles 9,631,418)so it would be impossible to fit the entire U.S. in the Sahara this claim should be removed

Removed. – Svest 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Ugh. The U.S. is 9,631,418 square kilometers, not square miles. The Sahara desert is about as large as the U.S. – 130.74.96.32 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mostly rock?

I've heard from a few places that the Sahara is primarily rock, and only something like 20% sand. Yet, all the photos I ever seem to see of it show endless sand dunes. Is it true that the desert is mostly rock, and if so, why aren't there more photos of this?

Funnyhat 01:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hoggar in Algeria is a famous part of the Sahara formed of mountains. There are many more parts that have mountains and rocks. Think for example on all the places with rock paintings, in Algeria, Libya, Niger. The west of Tunisia close to the Algerian frontier consists also of mountains. Think of the movie The English Patient: the desert parts are almost completely filmed in west Tunesia...--User:AAM | Talk 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletions by me.

I took everything mark marked as citation required and deleted them. I am not even knowledgable in the field. If you must reinsert said content, either include a citation on the talk page or in the article - I will revert any addition of information that does not include a reputable cite. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Age of Sahara

The intro says it's 2.5 million years old. Then the article says that during the last ice age, it was a much wetter place. The last glacial period ended just 10000 years ago. Then the article (and the Sahara Desert (ecoregion) article) claims that domestication of the pig resulted in desertification. The ecoregion article also says that 5000 years ago the desert was more like a savanna. So which is it? There are a lot of conflicting claims here. – 130.74.96.32 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because Geology is such an inexact science and no one was around. In frank personal discussions most experts will agree we have no idea how old anything is. Older than this but younger than that is about as good as you can get. Even with methods like isotope dating you can only make a guess because you can't tell how much of the isotope you started with or if the decay rate is constant. With an area that has as powerful of natural processes as the Sahara it's all just guessing.GoClick 19:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Temperature

I've searched the internet to no avail, but hopefully someone here will help me. What was the highest and lowest recorded temperature in the Sahara?

I found that you can find variations from -15C to 50C. These are extremes, I have no reference on exact recordings. From Sahara Ed Guide Marcus (1992) ISBN 2-7131-0073-9 --User:AAM | Talk 15:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

All those links removed

I notice that almost every link in this article has been removed. While the article previously seemed to have too many links, now it doesn't look like a Wikipedia article anymore. Is there some common ground on what should be linked? – Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The wikilink removal was recently done by 86.42.91.254 with no edit summary, thus no reason given. Judging by the remnants left behind they just searched for all occurances of '' or '' and blanked the substitution, therefore I don't think any thought went into the edit at all. (Actually they did go to the trouble of taking out the various embedded links to www.touregypt.net under the Cattle Period section. These links being references to the sources.)

For this reason I've reverted the change, as while I agree that it suffers from overlinking, a thoughtful copyedit is required rather than a mass deletion of wikilinks (and source links). – Graibeard^(talk) 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I hesitated to revert, as I've not contributed to the article (other than to revert vandalism at some point). It seems like there are a lot of "linkable" terms in the article. I suspect the article wouldn't look so overlinked after a good rewrite. – Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 03:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Cairo as largest city in Sahara

As the population of the Sahara is given as 2.5 million, that obviously does not include the Nile valley, so why would Cairo then be listed as the largest city in the Sahara. In fact, the Cairo metropolitan area has a population over 15 million. I know the article used to name Nouakchott as the largest city. Perhaps the article needs to explicitly exclude the Nile valley. – Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 11:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one don't consider Cairo to be situated in the Sahara. – mark ✎ 11:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, the Eastern Desert of Egypt is not always considered to be part of the Sahara, and certainly is different. I notice, moreover, that [[Eastern Desert]] is a redirect to Arabian Desert and East Sahero-Arabian xeric shrublands, although that article sets the western boundary of the Arabian desert at the Red Sea. I think a case can be made for setting the eastern boundary of the Sahara at the Nile valley. – Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 12:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at other encyclopedia articles which listed the more important cities in the Sahara; no mention was made of Cairo. It has been removed.

Guyminuslife (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Sahara/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

Several parts are too short to provide a broad view on the Sahara, such as the lead section, and there are just two sentences on its modern history. Although not mandatory, its history section could have images to illustrate it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Climate History

I added a section on the history of climate in the Sahara. I completely removed the previous discussion of human caused desertification because I couldn't find even one web site on it, even a sketchy one, but I found a number discussing monsoon changes. Also, the page Sahara Desert (ecoregion) seemed to be the source of this, but there it seemed to be based on something someone thought they remembered. Argent Cerulean 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no information about the temperatures? That seems to be very useful information for one looking at the largest desert. --FluffleS 16:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Camels

Camels in the Sahara were not introduced by the Arabs. See discussion page of History of Western Sahara.S710 09:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Camels in the Sahara, along with associated camel technology, do appear to be imported from northern Arabia, according to a leading expert.

For the best discussion of the history of camels in the Sahara, see Richard W. Bulliet (1975), The Camel and the Wheel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Republished in 1990 by Columbia University Press, with a new preface). Bulliet (Ph.D. Harvard University) is Professor of History at the Middle East Institute, Columbia University and specializes in the Middle East and North Africa. His homepage: http://www.columbia.edu/~rwb3/

According to Bulliet, the domestication of camels "first got under way between 3000 and 2500 BC" in southern Saudi Arabia, and the camel was first introduced into Africa, in Somalia, between 2500-1500 BC (Bulliet 1975:56). It was a particular type of riding saddle, however, (1975:87) invented in northern Arabia sometime between 500 and 100 BC that "transformed the economic, political, and social history of the Middle East," including the trans-Saharan caravan trade in Africa, eventually replacing wheeled transport. The new camel technology quickly spread from northern Arabia to Egypt, then south, then across the southern Sahara into the Central Sahara "around the second or first century BC," and finally spread slowly north along the caravan routes (Bulliet 1975:119).

24.91.194.249 16:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Challenged etymology

I have moved the text below here because of the challenge to the statement.

This same Arabic root also means magical or enchanted (this is wrong: the word magic has a different spelling: ﺮﺤﺴ(sin instead of sad); therefore magical/ecnchanted has nothing to do with the root of Sahara!).

I'll have to leave the resolution of this to those who know Arabic. – Donald Albury 14:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added that statement. I based my information from a Maltese dictionary and native speakers (Maltese variously being described as a language or an Arabic dialect, depending on which authority you ask). Both words are without doubt etymologically derived from classical Arabic. The sound, at least in that dialect, is identical. It may well be that there is a difference in spelling in the original Arabic script which is not preserved in the Maltese script. Rhialto 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt very much the native speakers confused this, but in any event, the issue is not spelling but entirely different sounds; the Sad is a different sound than the sin, and indeed there is not relationship between the two words. collounsbury 13:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Azalai?

I saw a link to "Azalai" in another article, which redirects here, although no mention of the term or what it means is in the article. 69.85.180.177 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be the name of a caravan route, or of the caravan journey. See here. – Donald Albury 12:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Humans how long?

The third paragraph starts "Humans have lived on the edge of the desert for almost 500,000 years." Now I could believe 100,000, but this seems like quite a stretch. --Jolomo 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It probably depends on whether you're talking about 'modern' humans (H. sapiens sapiens) or earlier members of the genus (H. heidelbergensis or H. neaderthalis). – Donald Albury 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sahara the same for the last 5,000 years??

Other articles talk about how the Sahara grew and weakened West African empires a thousand years ago, but this article on the Sahara states that the desert has not changed much since 2500BCE. Something should be said to explain this apparent discrepancy. The article on the Ghana Empire states "By 1059, the population density around the empire's leading cities was seriously overtaxing the region. The Sahara desert was expanding southward threatening food supplies." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.243.7.56 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Part of the problem is that sources differ. However, it is true that the area of desertification has been expanding, while conditions in the core of the Sahara have changed less drastically over the last three or four millenia. Note that the empires of West Africa were centered in the Sahel and the Sudan rather than the Sahara itself. The stress of over-population in those regions may have contributed to an expansion of the Sahara southward. – Donald Albury 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sahara hasn't changed much in Egypt since ~2000 BC but it's been creeping southward in West Africa.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

_________

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_sc/sci_green_sahara;_ylt=ApqNaQuC__xKe2V3H3ABR3kPLBIF

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer WASHINGTON - A tiny woman and two children were laid to rest on a bed of flowers 5,000 years ago in what is now the barren Sahara Desert. The slender arms of the youngsters were still extended to the woman in perpetual embrace when researchers discovered their skeletons in a remarkable cemetery that is providing clues to two civilizations who lived there, a thousand years apart, when the region was moist and green.

Paul Sereno of the University of Chicago and colleagues were searching for the remains of dinosaurs in the African country of Niger when they came across the startling find, detailed at a news conference Thursday at the National Geographic Society.

"Part of discovery is finding things that you least expect," he said. "When you come across something like that in the middle of the desert it sends a tingle down your spine."

Some 200 graves of humans were found during fieldwork at the site in 2005 and 2006, as well as remains of animals, large fish and crocodiles.

"Everywhere you turned, there were bones belonging to animals that don't live in the desert," said Sereno. "I realized we were in the green Sahara."

The graveyard, uncovered by hot desert winds, is near what would have been a lake at the time people lived there. It's in a region called Gobero, hidden away in Niger's forbidding Tenere Desert, known to Tuareg nomads as a "desert within a desert."

The human remains dated from two distinct populations that lived there during wet times, with a dry period in between.

The researchers used radiocarbon dating to determine when these ancient people lived there. Even the most recent were some 1,000 years before the building of the pyramids in Egypt.

The first group, known as the Kiffian, hunted wild animals and speared huge perch with harpoons. They colonized the region when the Sahara was at its wettest, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago.

The researchers said the Kiffians were tall, sometimes reaching well over 6 feet.

The second group lived in the region between 7,000 and 4,500 years ago. The Tenerians were smaller and had a mixed economy of hunting, fishing and cattle herding.

Their burials often included jewelry or ritual poses. For example, one girl had an upper-arm bracelet carved from a hippo tusk. An adult Tenerian male was buried with his skull resting on part of a clay vessel; another adult male was interred seated on the shell of a mud turtle.

And pollen remains show the woman and two children were buried on a bed of flowers. The researchers preserved the group just as they had been for thousands of years.

"At first glance, it's hard to imagine two more biologically distinct groups of people burying their dead in the same place," said team member Chris Stojanowski, a bioarchaeologist from Arizona State University.

Stojanowski said ridges on the thigh bone of one Kiffian man show he had huge leg muscles, "which suggests he was eating a lot of protein and had an active, strenuous lifestyle. The Kiffian appear to have been fairly healthy – it would be difficult to grow a body that tall and muscular without sufficient nutrition."

On the other hand, ridges on a Tenerian male were barely visible. "This man's life was less rigorous, perhaps taking smaller fish and game with more advanced hunting technologies," Stojanowski said.

Helene Jousse, a zooarchaeologist from the Museum of Natural History in Vienna, Austria, reported that animal bones found in the area were from types common today in the Serengeti in Kenya, such as elephants, giraffes, hartebeests and warthogs.

The finds are detailed in reports in Thursday's edition of the journal PLoS One and in the September issue of National Geographic Magazine.

While the Sahara is desert today, a small difference in Earth's orbit once brought seasonal monsoons farther north, wetting the landscape with lakes with lush margins and drawing animals and people.

The research was funded by National Geographic, the Island Fund of the New York Community Trust, the National Science Foundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.235.122.19 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wildlife

What lives there? Is it just sand or is there other stuff? plants/animals? Maybe im missing somethingthuglas^talk|edits 03:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on where in the desert. Most desert areas have some vegetation and animal life. Oases (and the Nile valley) can be quite lush. Ergs and some rock and gravel areas are quite barren, although even the most barren areas probably support microbial life and small invertebrates in the sand and under rocks. A Google search will find sites like this. – Donald Albury 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

countries

Nice it would be for this article to include an actual list of the countries in which the Sahara exists. Hmains 05:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously poor information

Do you know the Sahara is a new desert in Africa? Where is this info. The Sahara was tiny at the time of Ancient Egypt. THe Sahara was set and full of lions and elephants 1000 years ago. None of this info is included here. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sahara was wet 10-15k years ago, not a thousand. (collounsbury 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Nubians

The earliest known kingdom in Nubia is possibly older than Egypt and was known to the Egyptians as Ta-Seti, meaning "Land of the Bow", indicative of their efficiency with the Bow and Arrow.^[1] The culture is referred to as the A-group. A-Group peoples were ethnically and culturally very similar to the polities in predynastic Naqadan Upper Egypt.^[2]^[3] The A-Group peoples settled mostly in Lower Nubia and parts of southern Egypt (in the North to el-Kubaniya, north of Aswan); they were also found in the south as far as the Second Cataract. They were distinguished from other Sudanese cultures mainly by pottery. Many seemed to live a semi-nomadic lifestyle. During the era of Ta-Seti, there are some elite cemeteries known and royal tombs (notably at Qustul), suggesting a more complex social structure than before. The A-Group seems to have disappeared with the Old Kingdom (in Egypt) from Lower Nubia; however, some A-Group pottery at Buhen indicates continuing population on at least a small scale.

In the 2nd millennium BC, the kingdom of Kerma rose to prominence with its capital at Kerma, which encompassed much of upper Nubia. Closely related to the A-Group, the civilization thrived between 2500 BC to about 1520 BC. Close trade contacts with Egypt are observed during the Middle and Classical Kerma phases. Reisner excavated sites at Kerma and found large tombs and a palace-like structure ('Deffufa'), alluding to the early stability in the region. At one point, Kerma came very close to conquering Egypt, with Egypt suffering a "humiliating defeat" by the hands of the Kushites.^[4] According to Davies, head of the joint British Museum and Egyptian archaeological team, the attack was so devastating that had the Kerma forces chose to stay and occupy Egypt, they might have eliminated it for good and brought the great nation under extinction. Kerma hegemony however, was not to last as the kingdom soon saw its down fall with the rise of Egypt's New Kingdom and the conquests of Thutmosis I.

Nubia regrouped during the Napatan period (about 700 - 300 BC). Archaeologists have found several burials which seem to belong to local leaders, buried here after the Egyptians decolonized the Nubian frontier. The Kushites of this period were influenced heavily by Egyptian customs, intertwined with local customs. With the blessing of the high priests of Amun at Thebes, the Kushites marched north into Egypt under the leadership of king Piye. He initiated the Twenty-fifth dynasty of Egypt, which held sway over its northern neighbors for nearly 100 years, until they were eventually repelled by the invading Assyrians, in which they moved further south, establishing their capital at Meroe.

Meroe (800 BC - c. AD 350) lay on the east bank of the Nile about 6 km north-east of the Kabushiya station near Shendi, Sudan, ca. 200 km north-east of Khartoum. The people there preserved many ancient Egyptian customs but was unique in many respects. They developed their own form of writing, first utilizing Egyptian hieroglyphs, and later using an alphabetic script with 23 signs.^[5] Many pyramids were built in Meroe during this period and the kingdom consisted of an impressive standing military force. A famous episode in the history of Meroe is the coming of Alexander the Great with his forces. According to legend, confronted with the the brilliant military formation of the army led by Candace of Meroe, he concluded it would be best to withdraw his forces.^[6] Strabo also describes a clash with the Romans in which the Romans were defeated by Nubian archers under the leadership of a "one-eyed" (blind in one eye) queen.^[7] Meroe however, would eventually meet defeat by a new rising kingdom to their south, Askum, under King Ezana.

This article is not about the Nubians. The article enmeshes the Nubians in an attempt to monopolize it about Black Africans. This should go to the Nubians article to reshift focus on the Sahara. 80.58.205.40 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would you try and justify the removal of cited and relevant material on the basis of some perceived "racial" taxonomy?

The article enmeshes the Nubians in an attempt to monopolize it about Black Africans.

^This right here I believe, says a lot about what motivates you.Taharqa 21:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Climate question?

Uhm. First thing I'd say about the Sahara is 'it's hot and dry'. First thing someone would ask is, "How hot and how dry?" We address it's rainfall in this article, but uhm, range of temps please? 211.30.73.30 07:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

New scientific research on Sahara dry-out

Science reports new research suggesting that the Sahara may have dried out quite gradually, over the period 6k bp to 2.5k bp. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Borders

The article mentions a northern and southern border but not a eastern or western border. I'm going to assume that the western border is the Atlantic Ocean, but what's the eastern border. It looks like it's the Arabian Desert. If so, what is the difference between the two deserts besides being located on a different continent.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

green again?

ad: It has been reported that the Sahara is expanding south by as much as 30 miles (48 km) per year －> just note: i was reading somewhere sahara slowly changes to green again; just can't find good english link to it now, so shortly from http://www.noveslovo.sk/archiv/2002-39/bezhranic.asp New Scientist article: satellite photos - see some parts green again; generaly see also http://forums.csis.org/gsi/?p=676 Africa and EU To Make Sahara ‘Green Wall’ Tblazko (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I, like most editors of the English Wikipeida, don't understand Slovakian. As for the CSIS link, that is about a proposal to do something to try to stop the spread of desert conditions in Africa, and is not pertinent to a description of the history and current state of the desert. – Donald Albury 02:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the current content of the article is in stark contrast to reported science. Satellite imaging shows that the Sahel is indeed growing greener and the quite out-of-place negative section of desertification should thus be changed. Link to National Geographics article (in English) which in turn references the relevant scientific reports: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html Troed (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the Climate history section including the information from the National Graphics link above now. Troed (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And I have reverted you, because:

(1) You removed cited material without a consensus, and

(2) The source you added, despite its title, reports greening in the Sahel, not in the Sahara.

The National Geographic article talks about the possibility that the Sahara will get greener as a result of global warming, citing the observed greening of the Sahel as possible evidence. While this is certainly something that should be added to the article, it should not replace the information that the Sahara expanded southward 130 km between 1980 and 1990. Please note a statement at the end of the source for the 1980 to 1990 advance of the Sahara, namely, "Interannual variations mean that it would require a decades-long study to determine whether long-term expansion or contraction of the Sahara is occurring." This means that a few years data does not prove that a long-term trend has stopped. All of that said, the section needs work and better sourcing. But, again, please do not remove sourced material without the formation of a consensus to do so. -- Donald Albury 19:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Please check the quality of sources 7 and 8. As for source 9, it's used as a source for a statement on Global Warming that does not appear at all in the source. As for the National Geographics article, it talks about already observed rainfall in Sahara and increased vegetation of Sahel. It also states this has been going on for over 20 years. As far as I can see, that's exactly what I wrote (and I did not remove the section about Sahara having expanded southward 130km between 1980 and 1990 - don't know why you thought that). Troed (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. It was the last paragraph in the Overview section that you removed. Yes, those are poor sources. I have found a few on-line sources to use for discussion on how to improve the article. Desertification In The Sahel is an on-line text book at Texas A&M University. It discusses climate variations at different time scales in the Sahara and the Sahel. One item I noticed in the book that contradicts the claim in the National Geographic article that global warming will increase rainfall in the Sahel is this,

Recent work by meteorologists and oceanographers has shown that much of the recent year-to-year changes in Sahel rainfall are forced by changes in sea-surface temperature in the Gulf of Guinea (on the equator near the prime meridian) and by El Niño in the Pacific. When the gulf is warm, the Intertropical Convergence Zone shifts south away from the Sahel reducing the African monsoon that draws moist air into the Sahel. Longer term changes in rainfall from decade to decade are forced by changes in sea-surface temperature in the western Indian and tropical Atlantic oceans. When these areas are cool, Sahel rainfall increases.

Another source is this "Pulse Model" TED Conflict Studies - Fulani and Zarma tribes pushed into fights by Desertification? from American University, which talks about "the tendency of the Sahara desert to "move" South and back in waves over thousands of years". Finally, there is this, "Chapter 8: Conclusions and recommendations" Dust-climate interactions in the Sahel-Sahara zone of northern Africa, with particular reference to late twentieth century Sahelian drought., Nick Brooks' PhD dissertation at the University of East Anglia, which discusses the climate changes in the Sahel in the late 20th century. Being Web sites, these would not be my preference for sources, but they have bibliographis, which should be used for tracking down sources to use. -- Donald Albury 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I made another change which, thank to your comments, I think is indeed a lot better. I added "citation needed" for the claims that are not sourced correctly, and referenced the information from the NG article more clearly. I opted not to mention the parts about what Global Warming models predict or not at all, since I find such speculation not as relevant as the observed facts from satellites and nomads/Kröpelin. I know from elsewhere that the PDO modulates El Nino/La Nina quite strongly and that it indeed could be the likely cause of the regular decade long cycles of Sahel rainfall. That would well be interesting to add from the Texas text book you found. Since we both agree on the bad quality of the sources to the paragraph in the Overview section I still think it's a target for deletion though. Troed (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait a bit, either to get input from other editors, or find more reliable sources on whether and at what rate desertification is occurring. There apparently are reliable sources supporting the occurrence of desertification, but there may also be reliable sources contesting the occurrence or extent. -- Donald Albury 22:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll add some info below under the already existing heading about the contested paragraph.

Terraforming the sahara to reverse Global Warming?

There have been ideas from many quarters, e.g. [1] that the Sahara could be 'terraformed' to reverse global warming. Some, notably A. Ahad have even spelled out the specifics of how this could be done cheaply using solar energy for irrigation and such like by building a 69 megawatt solar power station [2] Gilgamesh007 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

These are basically forum postings, not WP:reliable sources. The only specific I see is that you/they describe a square mile solar array producing a twelfth of the output of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, which was scarcely a world-changing enterprise. Many of the proposed solar thermal energy enterprises are comparable in output, and not a square mile in size so far as I know. Once you get your decimals straight I think you might find the power needed from solar energy is sufficient to attack global warming at the point of emission. But that's irrelevant - point is, if you want it in the article you need better sources. Wnt (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Effect of latitude

"Observations confirm that convective "Hadley cells" actually exist near the equator, but they only extend to a latitudes of about 20°. That is where the Hadley flow descends again. The upward flow of the Hadley cells can raise the tropopause up to 16 kilometers (10 miles). Where the flow descends, the tropopause moves down too, and can be as low as 10 km. The descending air is also dry, and that causes a belt of deserts at these latitudes--in the southwest US and in Mexico, the Sahara, Arabia, Namibia and the interior of Australia."[3]

I've seen statements like this often used to explain the presence of the Sahara. But do the tremendous variations in the dryness of the Sahara imply that this global pattern of wind convection cells has also changed over time? Wnt (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Specious Taureg claim removed

I removed the rather bizarre claim that the name for the Sahara came from the Taureg language. It strains credulity to believe that the Arabs needed the Taureg word for desert (or claimed word) to reach the obvious conclusion that the Sahara is, well, a desert (Sahra in Arabic). (collounsbury (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

Note that this is based on a sensible, sourced sentence (in Tenere) but unfortunately the meaning seems to have been garbled during some intermediate revision. (It isn't really that relevant here anyway) I wonder whether as Wikipedia matures this problem of garbling by revision may become a serious overall limitation on its effectiveness. Unfortunately it is not easy to track down how these changes happen with the standard editing/history tools. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Saharan Cryptids and Bad Grammar

There was a reference in the fauna section to the Adjule, which is a mythical cryptid that has been debunked. Sightings have been determined to be the common African Hunting Dog. I removed this along with some very poorly written text about various desert foxes, and this was reverted by FaysallF with the reason "Reverted to revision 270446135 by Caniche; debunking w/o a single reason?". I removed it again with the citation to the article on the Adjule, which is cited. The text was put back in, but the link no longer goes to the Adjule, but to the African Hunting Dog, whose existence is not debated and is not "mysterious". The entry was phrased to seem like it was a cited reference to the mythical creature claiming it was a rare subpopulation with no cite. I have again clarified the sentence so this article does not appear to be referring to mythical creatures, and again corrected the very vague and ungrammatical section on foxes. These parts appear to be written by someone who is not fluent in English, they should restrict their Wikipedia edits to the Sahara article in their own language where they can use non-English grammar and make references to mythical beasts all they want 12.40.5.69 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sand Depth

How deep down does the sand extend before we reach rock bottom ...rock top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.223.244 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

uncited fact slipped into cited fact

In the Overview section it ends with: "Global warming and poor farming methods have been given as possible causes.[9]" The source used as footnote only cites poor farming methods. The sentence either needs a new source to support global warming or the language should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.15.117 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's quite common to see Global Warming put into everything. I added a comment above with regards to Sahara (at least Sahel) getting greener which indicates Global Warming could be the cause of the opposite compared to what's currently stated in the article. If you're correct about the current claim not being sourced correctly it should indeed be deleted. Troed (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I went through all references in that section, and found them to be of very low quality. You were correct in that the above reference did not mention Global Warming at all and thus that citation was clearly in error. Since the validity of that section was of doubtful quality overall I've removed it from the Overview section. Additional climate info from better sources can be added under Climate history. Troed (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My edit was reverted due to there not being a consensus. It's my view that the paragraph is of extremely low quality and contains original unreferenced personal opinions. Additionally, it seems the whole paragraph was added in one edit-spree by a single user and from the beginning the edit was contested due to quality issues with one of the references. The paragraph then also contained a sentence completely out of the blue with regards to the whole of Africa possibly becoming a desert. The next edit by the same user added yet another sentence on desertification, also without reference. Finally, a reference was added after the sentence on Global Warming but as correctly pointed out above, that reference does not contain anything on Global Warming and the paragraph as having been published on Wikipedia for soon 1 1/2 years is thus unsourced original research and worse, since this statement on climate has been situated under the Overview heading it's likely that readers have seen wrong information as opposed to information under Climate history which through the edit history has held much higher standards. The edits in question above can be found starting here—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.37 (talk • contribs) (This was me .. Troed (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

As other editors haven't chimed in yet, and I don't have the time right now to research this, I withdraw my objection to deleting the paragraph. -- Donald Albury 17:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No other comments have appeared and thus I've deleted the paragraph. Troed (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Size vandalism

In the few months since I put this page on my watchlist, the information on the Sahara's size has been modified countless times to 9,000km2. I don't understand if this is a random joke or if people genuinely have difficulties figuring out these measurements. 9,000km2 is not actually that big, it's just a few times the size of Greater London. Mezigue (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Subtle changes to numbers is a popular form of vandalism in Wikipedia. Sahara, at least, is on enough watchlists that the change in area is generally caught pretty quickly. I would think the vandals would get bored with the game after a while, but then I don't understand the attraction of vandalizing Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

'Over 9000' is an internet meme, it looks funny that the size is 'over 9,000,000km2' so people change it. 78.146.228.105 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Temperature

I am surprised the article does not mention anything about the temperature (main distinguishment between deserts and non-deserts), by months and/or on average. Does anyone have access to these measurements? --Alexander (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My 11 Feb 2010 edit

In case someone is wondering why I made my edit and then reverted: I was seeing this text under "History" before "Berbers": "lalalallala hey everyone hows school?". This text wasn't showing in the edit page, and looking at the vandalism removal done by the guy before me on the 10th, this line was undone, by him, so I have no idea why it was still rendered. Bug in Wikipedia? (hence the "Debugging Wikipedia" summary).

Uplink03 (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

or it means moon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.119.39.14 (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Metric System

I think it would be helpful to list all measurements in both systems, instead of primarily the Metric System in this article. The only instance I've seen so far is in the intro. For that matter, this should be common practice across wikipedia. It only makes sense, because not everyone undestands Centimeters, Hectares, Kilometers, kilograms etc. and likewise with inches, acres, miles, pounds, et cetera. Granted it's a major undertaking, but it's a worthwhile project, especially in articles where writers of different nationalities use different measurements within the same article.

     Most of the world uses the metric system. Get used to it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.166.69 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Sahara has an intermittent history that may go back as much as 3 million years."

What is that sentence in the introduction supposed to mean? The underlying rocks clearly have a much more ancient history, and the article itself says that "The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years." The sentence needs to be either clarified, or deleted as meaningless. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No response in three months, so I've deleted it. The citation didn't work either. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The only larger desert in the world is Antarctica?

This was added to the article. According to Desert, the Arctic is also a bigger desert. Is this correct? Begoon^talk 17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out at Talk:Desert that the Arctic is actually an ocean, not land - so that would make the Sahara the second largest land desert in the world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

it covers most of "Latvia"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

The Sahara (Arabic: الصحراء الكبرى‎, aṣ-ṣaḥrā´ al-kubra, "The Greatest Desert") is the world's largest cold desert. At over 18 mm2, it covers most of Latvia, making it almost as ......

Latvia????

It was vandalized. Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What about BEFORE the last ice age?

I Know that i can find citations for the fact thatt the sahara once was a mongrove forest cited from walking with prehistoric beasts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.194.190 (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

History Section

The History section needs some work as it totally overlooks the existance of ancient lakes around which the remains of the Kiffian culture (10,000 - 8,000 B.P) and Tenerian culture have been found in Niger. The Berber section can't stay as it is with no citations. The Sahara has been inhabited by different people in different areas so the information is questionable.

I would like to see some "history" of the desert itself: how the Sahara has formed and changed over time. This is only an overview of various Saharan peoples. Some history of the Sahara from an ecological/geological perspective would be appropriate and informative. 71.35.173.46 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing error?

One of the statements in the article currently reads: "The African Wild Dog has some populations confirmed in the southern Sahara.[33] or perhaps only 14 countries.[34].". That last bit needs some attention. --Vinsci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

World's largest deserts

This page refers to the Sahara as the largest hot desert and third largest desert after the Antarctic and Arctic deserts. This assertion is linked to a hyperlink. However the "desert" page of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert#Geography) stipulates that the Sahara is the second largest desert with significantly different data. I understand that the size of the Arctic varies throughout the year and is decreasing overall but this seems like a coherence issue. 157.150.192.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

Well do you have a reference where any other desert in the world is rated as the first one? Adrian (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Climate?

I was looking at the climate section in the hopes I could find out information about the Sahara's typical temps in summer, winter, day and at night; rainfall frequency and duration, and maybe extremes (like record high and low). Instead, I got a history lesson. Seems to me the "Climate" section should be re-labelled "History." 24.211.2.144 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

4,000 BC

I need to learn about the sahara in 4,000 B.C and what the people did to survive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.165.163 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2004 (UTC)

french version

I was reading a book by Paul Bowles (The Sheltering Sky), and I came across terms which I was not familiar with (oued, erg, bled, etc.) I assumed the wikipedia page on the Sahara would have everything, but unfortunately, there is nothing in English on these terms. To my surprise, I found that the French article has all these topics. However, I don't speak French. So I think someone in the community interested in improving the Sahara article would do well to translate those portions of the French article missing from its English counterpart.

I'm not actually a community member, but I thought I could help out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.137.45 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexic typo/link

Under Flora & Fauna, there is a photo with link text:

"An Urabi oasis lake, with native grasses and Date palms."

Urabi is a link. Problem is, it should be UBARI & the link should be changed. I'm no member & don't have time to figure out how to get in & try to fix it myself.

Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

looks like some one has been having a bit of editing for humour

near the top the text "then the rain came and it flooded and it raind cats and dogs" appears and probably shouldn't

62.49.59.228 (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It looks like it was vandalism that was initially fixed by a new editor, then accidentally re-introduced, and has now been fixed again in this edit. It's fine to edit the page yourself to remove obviously problematic material like this, if you like. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removal of redundant publisher information

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=IMDB for references to Box Office Mojo, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher). Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

well we already know what Sahara is its just that we have a test on monday and i need alot of help please!!!!!!!!!!!1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.250.3 (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sahara

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sahara's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Voodoo Skies":

From Dakar: "Dakar, Senegal". Voodoo Skies. Retrieved 2014-02-17.
From Luxor: "Luxor, Egypt". Voodoo Skies. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
From Aswan: "Aswan, Egypt". Voodoo Skies. Retrieved 9 July 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Climate examples

We currently have ~~ten (10!!)~~ ~~eleven (11 !!!)~~ ~~twelve (12 !!!)~~ nineteen tables giving examples of climate data. That is way, way too many. Which three or four should we choose to give a balanced picture? ~~Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)~~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Sarah

Is this a joke? Do people really confuse Sarah and Sahara? --2.245.105.125 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It was silly vandalism. Thank you very much for spotting it, and taking the time to point it out. I removed it. Begoon ^talk 14:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! --2.245.105.125 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures

The temperatures section is pretty silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.30.174 (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to read through with all the numbers. Should probably be in some sort of sortable list or table rather than text and towards the bottom of the article. AaronY (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone willing to go through the 'Precipitation', 'Temperatures', and 'Sunshine' subsections to reformat them as data tables? Frankly, while the whole 'Climate' section has a lot of really useful data, I'm not convinced it needs to be nearly as detailed as it currently is. Besides moving a bunch of the individual data points to a table, I wonder if someone could go over the whole thing with a fine-toothed comb and streamline it. PublicolaMinor (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ack! Tried to put in paragraphs and ended up with big grey boxes under "climate"

Sorry, first thing I'm trying to edit ever, because the wall of text was killing me. I've tried just putting in newlines in the raw text itself, with no success, so I went in and added br tags instead, but still with no success.

I am very sorry for breaking it but I don't know how to fix it and actually format the text with paragraphs

Ignus3 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Done I think. Did I fix the problem? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! I find myself indebted to the mysterious racer X! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignus3 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ignus3: Hehe. No problem. If you want to break it up into more paragraphs, just hit the return key where you want the paragraph to end (creating the break) then hit return again (placing a line-space separating the paragraphs). Do not add an indent to the next paragraph. I think you tried to make it more difficult than it really was ;) Happy editing. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Typo on introduction

Maghreb; NOT Mahgreb! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.5.56.45 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 December 2015

Fixed. Vsmith (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Tagged Climate section. Revert 88.165.192.45?

Excessive inline statistics, often uncited, and barely readable prose: while I have suggested that this editor switch to tables, I'm not sure if the message got through. Reverting a dozen of more edits seem overkill, so I've tagged it for now.

Ideas, anyone? --Forsch (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The same IP editor (in France) has been obsessively tinkering with the article for months, and did include climate tables - for example in this version, which contained 19 separate climate tables as well as all the figures in the main text - but then self-reverted as some of the information was apparently inaccurate. My suggestion would be to create a separate new article on Climate of the Sahara, where tables and detailed figures can be set out, but to revert this article to a state in which it provides an accessible overview. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: I've previously avoided having to read this text, but it is clear that it is extremely poorly written, perhaps by an editor with an inadequate grasp of the English language, and is largely unreferenced. So far it has not been possible to engage the editor concerned in discussion, and it may be worthwhile referring the matter to a wider forum than this talk page. I have left another message on the editor's talk page. I favour a radical approach, rewriting the salient points of the section, based on what reliable sources say, and creating a new spin-off article on Climate of the Sahara, to contain detailed and referenced statistics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have many, many sources that prove everything I've added to this article. And before I came here, the climate section of the Sahara was just empty and there was nothing, absolutely nothing. I can say I approximatively have more than 100 sources, but I just can't put them all in this article. Most of these sources are deserts meteorology books written by famous meteorologists, some others are good accurate articles about the climate of the hot deserts and more and more. And stop with your references because I have many sources and do you think I will put them all in my text? Did you see the excessively high amount of sources and references at the end of the article about the Sahara? It will be huge and worthless. Do you really think I would be able to put false information on a such known encyclopedia which is visited by millions of people? In addition, I actually study the deserts meteorology and climatology, especially the Sahara. I just want to put all my knowledge in the weather articles. Maybe I have a litte abused on my modifications on this article about the climate but I just want it to be perfect. I don't want to have trouble with you all because the only thing I want is to greatly improve this free encyclopedia because I honestly believe there are lots of lacking and missing information for some articles and lots of useless, boring and annoying sentences for others. And I'm agree with you: it'd be really good to create a fully new article on the Climate of the Sahara because it's a truly interesting thing. 88.165.192.45 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, and thank you for your contributions. However, I think you are mistaken about several aspects of how Wikipedia works. Firstly, it is essential that the article is useful to most readers - and not excessively long or detailed. That means, I think, that we do need to create a separate article on Climate of the Sahara. Some of the detailed text and tables in this article can be removed and included in the new article (which of course will be linked from this article). Secondly, it is essential that you include information about the sources of your material. No-one is mistrusting you - but of course it would be easy for anyone to add false information, for whatever reason, but to claim that it is accurate. All material in Wikipedia must be capable of being checked by others, and that means that you must provide references, giving reliable sources. The number of references in this article is not excessive, given the length of the article. If you are prepared to add properly referenced material to the suggested new article, others will edit the text in this article, to make it more accessible for readers. But, thank you again for all your efforts, which are certainly appreciated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand that better now! Yeah, I noticed I've added many things, which aren't necessarily useful for the article about the Sahara and people may not rely on some parts of the article which aren't sourced or referenced. I've really understood your thinking now and I thank you again for your explanations because I didn't understand the way Wikipedia works. I think we should create a new accurate article about the Climate of the Sahara with referenced information. This time, I'll put all my sources and all my references in the article because I now know that people must have a way to check whether the given information is true and reliable or not. I'm ready to cooperate with you because I find your idea very good and I want to improve Wikipedia, so I entirely agree with you. And again, thank you for appreciating my work, thank you very much, it's like a job for me. It'd be great if I or some other people could edit the current Climate section in the Sahara article, in order to make it better, to enhance, to shorten it and to summarize it. As well, a detailed article exclusively about the Climate of the Sahara would be much better. As you said it, the new article should normally be matched with the Climate section. I think this idea seems to be ideal to help improving the Sahara article. 88.165.192.45 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Another issue is that the quality of English used makes the article difficult to read. Your English vocabulary is excellent but the structure is sometimes lacking. After the revisions being discussed I would like to clean up the English. I am quite good at this but I don't want to do it until the factual information is in good order. Portobello Prince (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Poor grammar and punctuation in this article.

I can't correct any of the factual information about the Sahara, but some of the grammar and punctuation in this article is very poor. If I can remember how I would like to edit a lot of it to improve that aspect. Any advice or comments? Portobello Prince (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, after re-reading this page through I can see that major edits and revisions are being proposed. How I missed that the first time I don't know, maybe I was too eager to help or something. Whatever; I have been told I am good at writing clear English but I think it is best if I try to make my contribution when the article is in a more stable form. Portobello Prince (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to have a go at it. I don't see anyone else active on it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2016

This edit request to Sahara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In "الصحراء الكبرى‎‎, aṣ-ṣaḥrāʾ al-kubrā", in the fist line of text, "aṣ-ṣaḥrāʾ" should be "al-ṣaḥrāʾ", because al (ال) is the definite article and is what appears in الصحراء (al-ṣaḥrāʾ).

Nebulus55 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, and thank you! Rules of enpagement Paine 00:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.slate.com/id/2225607/entry/2225663/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. Rules of enpagement Paine 00:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Underground Nile???

The section geography has the interesting observation that "the Nile River .. crosses the desert underground before emptying into the Mediterranean, although aquifers sometimes surface, forming oases.... Bahariyya, Siwa..." I saw the Nile above ground in the desert, had lots of water in hot summer. So that is obviously nonsense. I dont know if oasis aquifers have anything to do with the Nile, but I doubt it for a number of the mentioned examples. Kipala (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You are right. See Niger River#European exploration, 1st paragraph. This is a misconception about the Nile started by Pliny the Elder. I have removed the paragraph as WP:UNSOURCED. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Western Sahara: Huge mistake

>>> Spain captured present-day Western Sahara after 1874, although Rio del Oro remained largely under Tuareg influence

The Tuaregs are not related to Western Sahara at all! They are, and always were, thousand miles far away. You should refer to Sahrawi people.

And, by the way, this clumsy sentence as the only reference to Spanish presence in Western Sahara is really poor.--83.52.172.57 (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. The section has no citations to refer to and the Sahrawi people article shows this area is occupied by these people, so I have made the change. Someone else can fix the prose unless you care to suggest better prose and I will put it in. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

including the local name of Sahara

Amazighs (exonym: Berbers) use the word Tiniri which means literally in Tamazight (the general name of Berber languages family) a desert! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhned (talk • contribs) 00:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

African slaves referred to as "resources"

Under History > Arabic expansion, it says something about gathering "resources from the source in Guinea" in reference to slaves. This is highly inappropriate and awkward language, and should be modified to reflect that expansion of Portuguese ship technology lead to a greater number of people being kidnapped as slaves

I'd make this change myself except that the page is currently locked for modification. Nicmoe (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is WP:UNSOURCED, so I removed it. I cannot rephrase something when I do not know what it was suppose to say. Also it said caravels carried out the trade, but the article about caravels says the trade was carried out by carracks, so the paragraph is inaccurate. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Provide basic Sahara information before specific Sahara information

This edit request to Sahara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rephrase first sentence in article.

From: "The Sahara (Arabic: الصحراء الكبرى‎‎, aṣ-ṣaḥrāʾ al-kubrā , 'the Greatest Desert') is the largest hot desert and the third largest desert in the world after Antarctica and the Arctic."

To: The Sahara (Arabic: الصحراء الكبرى‎‎, aṣ-ṣaḥrāʾ al-kubrā , 'the Greatest Desert') is a desert in North Africa. It is the largest hot desert and the third largest desert in the world after Antarctica and the Arctic."

It seems to me that the location of the Sahara is more basic information regarding the Sahara than its ranking in the global ordering of deserts. Earthawgr (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not oppose or agree, but I have heard it argued that brevity is also important. It a bit of a balancing act. Do you think the increase in verbiage is worth the prioritizing of facts? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ecoregions

There is a "Tanezrouft" page on Wikipedia, so I would suggest linking to it in the "Ecoregions" section of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanezrouft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.17.3 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Geology in Sahara pages

The sahara is a considerably geological topic, they physical geography and geology of the north african shield and the sahara geology is not mentioned once, and there should be some information, for example geological facts about the percent of which minerals in which forms exist there. Geology of North Africa should be visible on the page referred to as geology of the Sahara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeinthetrees (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Geo-history of the Sahara

I came to this article to find out about the desertification and geo-history of the Sahara area in terms of being a land-area (geological rather than anthropocentric history).

I was stunned to find we have nothing on it, here.

What was the history of this significant land area prior to humanity (c. early earth to 1 million years ago)?
When and how did it desertify?
What about economic geology (oil, surface structures, minerals) and hydrogeology, etc?
What else is worth mentioning about the Sahara that we omit here?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Precession versus obliquity

The Introduction refers in the third paragraph to a 41,000 year cycle of 'precession' as the driving force behind the alternate desert/savannah climate of the Sahara. But the precession cycle, as the link to its Wiki page notes, actually has a period of 19,000-23,000 years. It is the Earth's obliquity, its tilt, that has a period of 41,000 years. This is actually stated in the later section on the Desertification and Prehistoric climate. Can an amend be made to the Introduction to correct this confusion? kenr28Kenr28 (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Visibility across interstellar space

Simulations of Light Curves from Earth-like Exoplanets - Planetary Habitability Laboratory @ UPR Arecibo An interesting result is that the Earth looks bluish except when the Sahara Desert is in view. Its bright yellow cancels out the bluishness, making the Earth neutral-colored.

So the Sahara Desert can be seen from across interstellar space.

I don't know if this factoid is worth including in the main article, or where it might best be included. Lpetrich (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

semi-protected

I can't see any discussion about why the page is semi-protected. Is there any reason why it should remain so? 37.99.33.228 (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Archaeologist/Paleontologist

Under History > Tenerians: "Gobero was discovered in 2000 during an archaeological expedition led by Paul Sereno, which sought dinosaur remains."

This should read "paleontological expedition." Paul Sereno is a paleontologist and the sentence specifies they were looking for fossils. I understand this common mix-up is a killing offense among paleontologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.77.147.9 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Size

The correct % is 25, updated in 1919. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.110.17 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Error in temperature section

Not sure how to do this, I'm new, but this is obviously wrong

The average diurnal temperature range is typically between 13 and 20 °C or 23.4 and 36.0 °F. The lowest values are found along the coastal regions due to high humidity and are often even lower than 10 °C or 18 °F

The Celsius and Farenheit degrees don't match up at all, I'm not sure which is right so I can't fix it, also regardless because the page is protected. Someone should fix this ASAP though because obviously there is an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.208.241 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Mamata rani bachhar (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted a change that was meant to "fix" this because the original was a correct conversion. The figures are change in temperature, not absolute temperature. A change of 10 C is a change of 18 F, not a change of 50 F. For example, 10 C to 20 C is 50 F to 68 F.

Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

71.95.101.26 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Tony Sims I noticed this discrepancy -- "Other hot spots in Algeria such as Adrar, Timimoun, In Salah, Ouallene, Aoulef, Reggane with an elevation between 200 metres (660 ft) and 400 metres (1,300 ft) above sea level get slightly lower summer average highs around 46 °F or 7.8 °C during the hottest months of the year."

Based on the other temperature citations, I would assume the intention was that the 46 °F is supposed to be 46 °C, and the 7.8 °C I supposed to be 114°F.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahara&action=edit&section=1#

The excuses for the nonsense in this section -- still fucked more than 3 years later -- are wrongheaded. The text does not say it's giving a range of temperature differences (a datum that's not intuitive in any event) but a range of temperatures period. I came here looking for typical low temperatures in the Sahara, and not only is that information not here, what is here is misleading. 192.31.106.42 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That section specifically states, "Due to lack of cloud cover and very low humidity, the desert usually has high diurnal temperature variations between days and nights." This means it is talking about temperature differences, daytime minus nighttime. In high school I learned to use, e.g., "C°" ("Celcius-degrees", not "degrees Celcius") for temperature differences to prevent just this kind of ambiguity, but when this kind of thing has been discussed in the past, that idea didn't seem to catch on. In any case, I have tried to clarify things a bit in the text. - dcljr (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

^ http://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/f97projects/nubia/history.html
^ Bruce Williams, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 15-26
^ S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87: 245-254 (1992)
^ Tomb Reveals Ancient Egypt's Humiliating Secret The Times (London, 2003)
^ Meroe: writing - digitalegypt
^ Jones, David E., Women Warriors: A History, Brasseys, Inc.; (2000)
^ Nubian Queens in the Nile Valley and Afro-Asiatic Cultural History - Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Professor of Anthropology, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston U.S.A, August 20-26, 1998

[1] ttp://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/f97projects/nubia/history.html

[2] Bruce Williams, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 15-26

[3] S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87: 245-254 (1992)

[4] Tomb Reveals Ancient Egypt's Humiliating Secret The Times (London, 2003)

[5] Meroe: writing - digitalegypt

[6] Jones, David E., Women Warriors: A History, Brasseys, Inc.; (2000)

[7] Nubian Queens in the Nile Valley and Afro-Asiatic Cultural History - Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Professor of Anthropology, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston U.S.A, August 20-26, 1998

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]