Talk:Sub-Saharan Africa/Archive 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or perhaps:

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

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

OK, so there are two obvious changes to make:


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


 * Change the 5% decrease to something accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not a political dictionary. The term Sub-Saharan means next to nothing and any one who tries to discover which countries located in the Sahara are considered Sub-Saharan will quickly come to the realization that the term makes no sense. I never seen such a broken and tormented term find such widespread use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.39.147 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 November 2011

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

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

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


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


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

WP:RELIABLE

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


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

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

The article needs a clean up and a review by an expert. All the sources need to be checked. If you are discussing Sub-Africa then you must stick to that discussion without jumping to discussions about the potential of AFRICA. This article is not about Africa, but about Sub-Saharan Africa. So define it, and work within that definition. WIthout using sources like "The potential of Africa (as a whole)". In lay English, the article must discuss the geography of Sub-Africa as distinctive or contrasted against that of North Africa. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those arguments you raise above have already been addressed in an earlier section, including the sources you complain about. I do, however, agree that that phrase on marathons & Sub-Saharan Africans is unsupported. Much of the article was recently expanded by one editor in particular. He and I initially clashed because I believed the sources didn't support what he claimed with regard to demographic figures. But on closer inspection, the figures he provided seemed ok after all. Soupforone (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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


 * What the sources state were already quoted for you (here and here). For whatever reason, you just had a hard time accepting those facts, and are now quoting policy stating that inline citations should be provided. Uh, they already were provided. See below. Soupforone (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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


 * POV-pushing is continuously removing reliable sources with no legitimate reason, and instead replacing them with a self-made map one has just uploaded (as you have just done). See below. Soupforone (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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


 * "North Africa is predominantly Muslim while sub-Saharan Africa is largely Christian" -- Encyclopedia of religious freedom, p.1

Regarding the Horn of Africa (since you mentioned Ethiopia):


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

And regarding the northern, Sahelian parts of West Africa:


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

Those are clear, direct statements supporting the edits. Yet here you are again fighting the issue as to whether or not Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly Christian with nothing more than your own words and a you yourself personally uploaded just today, and you have the audacity to accuse me of "POV"? That map doesn't even acknowledge that the various countries in Africa each have diverse religious constituencies and aren't all made up of either Christians or Muslim or adherents of traditional religions, as it chauvinistically and falsely suggests. To top it off, you invent a quote and then attribute it to me thinking you're somehow making me look bad (namely, "SUb-Africa is a Christian continent with Muslims here and over there and under there, but apart from that, it is Christian" - I never stated that), when in reality, you're only shooting yourself in the foot since part of WP:CIV is not attributing false statements to other editors. Furthermore, there still is no such policy as WP:QUANTIFY, and that page you linked leads to the Manual of Style, which is a guideline page, not a policy page. Only actual policies determine what an editor should and shouldn't do, and you've already violated quite a few. Stop removing sources. Soupforone (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You yourself, obviously a white South African, are pushing your own POV- such as your phrasing "White Africans of European ancestry" rather than the more neutral phrasing of Halaq. Clean this up and there will be no problem. BerbiceRiver (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Refer to WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:VER for Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, rudeness and commenting on other users. Also refer to WP:SPA for ad hoc account creation yet a strange pre-understanding of the "lingo" of Wikipedia and how to post. There's also nothing sinister about linking to other articles -- including that of White Africans of European ancestry -- as that is what WP:LINK itself recommends. Unless you hold some kind of prejudice in this regard (in which case, see WP:NOTADVOCATE), you have nothing to complain about here. The word "neutral" also hardly describes that other account's edits, as they have already been thoroughly debunked above and he has already expressed his affinity with Afrocentrism (which is against WP:NOTOPINION, like any other fringe idealogy). Soupforone (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirror
FYI, Afropedea.org has a mirror of a large portion of this article (starting with "Climate zones and ecoregions"). Afropedea does not give credit to Wikipedia, nor does it mention the CC-BY-SA license. I have listed the site at WP:MIRROR/Abc#Afropedea.org and emailed the site owner. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The particular webpage in question has since been blanked. Again, see WP:MIRROR. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.afropedea.org apologises at lack of compliance. One of our esteemed editors wrote 85% of the material. We thought Wikipedia was completely free, like public domain. http://www.afropedea.org is a truly free collaboration. http://www.afropedea.org one could say is a "free for all." We ask that all articles be factual and well referenced, be presented in a dignified manner towards African peoples or Black peoples, no racist, bigotted point of view. Unlike Wikipedia, http://www.afropedea.org is not in the business of liscencing or copyrighting. http://www.afropedea.org is completely decentralize, unlike our WikiMedia encyclopedic compatriots the afrocentric World Afropedia(aka Afropedia), NigeriaWiki, and MeroeWiki, which are completely centralized. Gyrofrog we welcome your input in keeping http://www.afropedea.org in compliance with with Wikipedia liscencing and copyrighting rules. Are all editor accounts on Wikipedia, also copyrighted and liscenced under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.48.62 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not public domain. You are allowed to re-use its content, but you must indicate that Wikipedia was the source. (Lots more details at Copyrights.) I'm not sure what you mean by the last question, but note that when anyone edits a Wikipedia article, at the bottom of the edit box its says (in part) "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the  CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.... See the Terms of Use for details." If you have more questions about this, I suggest posting them at Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks. Thank you for following up, -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

HDI Figures
These are very wrong and need to be updated with correct 2010 numbers found here: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Tables_reprint.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.117.160 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion in Africa
Can someone please bring the stats in real terms to support the fact that East Africa has more Muslims than west Africa? Because the religion section claims only East Africa has many Muslims while the rest of Africa is dominated by Christians. Let me help you a little Chad, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, Mauritania, Niger. all with Muslim populations over 50% so how is Islam an exception in East Africa. The only part of Africa without large % of Muslims is Central and Southern Africa.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not continue to add original thinking based upon a map. I do not know anyone who uses a map to draw an encyclopedic conclusion about religion in Africa. CIA fact book et al. Is far more accurate. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The religion section does not claim that "only East Africa has many Muslims while the rest of Africa is dominated by Christians". That is absurd. It quite clearly states that "North Africa is strongly dominated by Islam, while Sub-Saharan Africa—with the exception of the predominantly Muslim Horn of Africa,[100] Sudan, Swahili coast, and the Sahel -- is mostly Christian or home to many traditional African religions." This is sourced fact, not original research. The parts of West Africa that are mostly Muslim are the northern, Sahelian parts. Soupforone (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the source that says this, please bring the source into the research. So in West Africa they have North parts? is this not North Africa? Please use a source that can be checked to verify this until this is done a tag will be placed.

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

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


 * That's just it: Sub-Saharan Africa does not have more Muslims than Christians. It has more Christians than Muslims: "North Africa is predominantly Muslim while sub-Saharan Africa is largely Christian" (Encyclopedia of religious freedom, p.1). I also never relied on a map for that statement on West Africa. I merely stated that the map illustrates this fact. It is the source itself that I added which supports the established fact that it's the northern parts of West Africa that are mostly Muslim while the southern parts are dominated by Christianity: "Northern West Africa is mostly Muslim, while the south is mostly Christian" (The Kingfisher young people's atlas of the world, p.64). I have therefore removed your quantify tag, as the sourced statement above doesn't require it. Soupforone (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we know this if you will not quantify stop using original research and do real research and bring the percentages. Very simple. convoluted nonsense is not encyclopedic. More Christians or less, where is the numbers to prove it either way?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple. We know that Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly Christian and not, contrary to your beliefs, mostly Muslim because the quote I just produced unamibiguously says so. Again: "North Africa is predominantly Muslim while sub-Saharan Africa is largely Christian" (Encyclopedia of religious freedom, p.1). We also know that it's the northern parts of West Africa that are mostly Muslim while the southern parts are dominated by Christianity because of the second source I produced: "Northern West Africa is mostly Muslim, while the south is mostly Christian" (The Kingfisher young people's atlas of the world, p.64). WP:RS does not require me or anyone else to "quantify" anything; all it requires is a reliable source to back-up one's claims, which I have provided. There is no such policy as WP:QUANTIFY, and that quantify page you linked to is a disambiguation page, not a policy page. Kindly stop removing sources. Soupforone (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pew Figures of Religion in Africa ("Christians now outnumber Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa by 2 to 1") April 19, 2010
"A study published on April 15 by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has found that the number of Christians in sub-Saharan Africa grew from seven million in 1900 to 470 million today. During the same time period, the number of Muslims grew from 11 million to 234 million.

In 1900, 76% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa practiced indigenous religions, while 14% were Muslim and 9% were Christian. Today, 57% of the population is Christian, while 29% are Muslim and 13% practice indigenous religions."

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6063

"the number of Muslims living between the Sahara Desert and the Cape of Good Hope has increased more than 20-fold, rising from an estimated 11 million in 1900 to approximately 234 million in 2010. The number of Christians has grown even faster, soaring almost 70-fold from about 7 million to 470 million. Sub-Saharan Africa now is home to about one-in-five of all the Christians in the world (21%) and more than one-in-seven of the world's Muslims (15%).

While sub-Saharan Africa has almost twice as many Christians as Muslims, on the African continent as a whole the two faiths are roughly balanced, with 400 million to 500 million followers each. Since northern Africa is heavily Muslim and southern Africa is heavily Christian, the great meeting place is in the middle, a 4,000-mile swath from Somalia in the east to Senegal in the west."

http://pewforum.org/executive-summary-islam-and-christianity-in-sub-saharan-africa.aspx

--Africa1432 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa → Black Africa – As per above. I think 'Black Africa' as opposed to 'Arab Africa' would be a better title for this article. unsigned entry by SmokeyTheCat 18 April 2011.
 * oppose By common name stick with Sub-Saharan Africa. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose strongly Black Africa is a pejorative term, like Yellow Chinese it describes nothing and makes no sense. At least sub-Africa is a geographical reference. No such redirect should be allowed.In any event who uses the term Black Africa? NGO all talk about Sub-Africa if they want to be specific. And are they no Arabs in socalled Black or Sub Africa? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. If you're thinking strictly in terms of ethnic groups, then yes, it's mostly black. However, such racial generalisations are deeply unhelpful even in human geography, and that's before you get to all the other aspects of sub-saharan Africa. Are the crops, the geology, the exports, the poetry, and the wildlife all "black"? bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Black Africa as a term is not particularly helpful and is somewhat antiquated. It confounds race with geography, when the two are not perfectly or sometimes at all related. One can, for example, readily find "black" people in North Africa and "non-black" people in Sub-Saharan Africa. The much more common geographical term Sub-Saharan Africa avoids all of this. Soupforone (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Black Africa" and "Sub-Saharan Africa" are not equivalent, particularly with regards to Sudan. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Why opt for a racial term over a geographic one? Even if 'Arab Africa' is a valid regional reference, that is merely a term based on culture or ethnic group, not a blanket classification of race.  Furthermore, it is a generalisation - 20% of South Africa and Namibia's populations could find it objectionable for that reason.  Furthermore, if I had to switch my mind over to 'colonialist' thinking, it makes me involuntarily think that it is referring to the Congo Basin.  Ref.  and .  Just look at the publications listed in the Google Books result: .  The publishing dates mostly range from 1970 to 1989, and there's even a Slavery in the history of Muslim Black Africa title, which further confuses the issue.  Furthermore, "Sub-Saharan Africa" is a precise and emotionless term that is widely used - which conforms much better to WP:NPOV than the proposal, which can easily be perceived pejoritively.  Let's not forget WP:COMMONNAME either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gk sa (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We could just as easily get into a debate about how "Africa" is inappropriate, because (originally) it did not refer to the entire content, or it was imposed by the Greeks etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Out-of-date maps (not including South Sudan)
I noticed that two maps on this page have borders drawn on to them, but exclude South Sudan (which is quite a large and noticeable omission). The country has not been independent for long, so it's easy to see why it isn't included on every map. I'm just suggesting that someone who is good at adding new borders onto these types of maps can add South Sudan. I think it would improve the article, but it's not necessarily a top priority!

The maps are: "File:East and southern africa early iron age.png" AND "File:Africa Koppen Map.png"

(One other map (HDI chart) understandably does not include South Sudan as there is no information to include.) Thanks. Peter (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Fixed now.Peter (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bilateral aid
The OECD says that $28 billion went to Sub-Saharan Africa as bilateral in 2011 (see this). Should that be in a new part of the Economy section or in its own section?86.42.195.211 (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That could be a good idea - but bear in mind that aid income is actually less than remittance income. bobrayner (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sudan and S Sudan
need to be mentioned in the Lead. I have seen someone just add Somalia and Djibouti as some kind of exception. Well Is Sudan in Sub-Saharan Africa now that it has been split? Because in the country section it is still listed as part of Sub-Africa. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sudan was a special case exactly because it was so large, spanning both N and Sub-Saharan Africa. With the split, the natural division will be to count S Sudan as Sub-Saharan, but apparently official sources haven't quite caught up with this, so it will need to remain up in the air for the time being. --dab (𒁳) 07:22, 10 September 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). Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't exist" sentence.
I don't see the point of this sentence being in the article:

"Some note that Sub-Saharan Africa neither exists linguistically (Afro-Asiatic languages), ethnically (Tuareg), politically (African Union, Arab league), in terms of religion (Islam), nor economically (CEN-SAD)"

Should we add to the Europe article: "Some note that Europe neither exists linguistically (Indo-European languages), ethnically (some ethnicity that lives in both Europe and the near east), politically (Mediterranean Union, Council of Europe which includes a huge chunk of Asia), in terms of religion (Christianity which goes way beyond Europe, and includes much of Africa).".

Both those statements might be true from a certain point of view, and might be verifiable, but what do they add to the article? Statements about weather things like Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa really exist might make scene on more philosophical articles like Existence, but what's the point of such statements on this type of article? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence doesn't cite a source, much less specify who "some" is/are. I'm inclined to say chuck it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nubia?
I was reading this article and saw that it said that Nubia was Sub-Saharan. That makes no sense, Nubia was CLEARLY in the Sahara desert near Egypt/North Sudan. To me, it makes it seem as though the term was made just to describe any person of Black ancestry, whether they live in the Sahara or not. This needs to be changed.71.23.85.67 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Table in section Languages and ethnic groups
The table in the section Languages and ethnic groups has no headings or any explanation of what the figures represent. For example, Portuguese and Afrikaans are listed, but there is no information on the speakers. Do the figures include all speakers or only African speakers? Why are French and English not listed? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The table gives figures for the major languages of Africa by region, family and total number of primary speakers in millions. I've added a note to that effect; I'm not sure though what are the totals for French and English primary speakers. Middayexpress (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have two questions, though:
 * What is understood by "primary speaker"?
 * What are the sources of the numbers? The article Portuguese in Africa, for example cites 14 million speakers of Portuguese, this page says 8.
 * Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No prob. The table was abridged from here. The figures therein are presumably either from the footnotes in the table or on the link-through pages. "Primary speakers" here refers to primary language speakers. Middayexpress (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

History of Sub-Saharan Africa
This introduction gives Look denigration to African history and also that there are many writing systems in Africa did not mention here such as Nsibidi and others in west africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waslalh (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Outside of the Ethiopian highlands and the Nile Valley, the plow wasn't really used until recently. This was because the farmers elsewhere either already used the hoe as their primary agricultural tool, or the populations were instead mainly pastoralists or hunter-gatherers and thus did not engage in extensive tilling. While it's true that early writing systems were also mainly concentrated in this area, the Nsibidi system was indeed apparently in use in the Cross River Region of Nigeria/Cameroon since at least the 15th century. Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "gives Look denigration to African history…" How you see it is immaterial. If we went through deleting every sourced fact that an editor chooses to see in a negative light, we'd be looking at quite a massive project.
 * "many writing systems in Africa…" The area under consideration is sub-Saharan Africa, not Africa. Nsibidi is just ideograms; it is not a system of writing, like an alphabet or the East Asian logograms.
 * Any other objections? This is such a blatant case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT it's ridiculous. And the source is Harvard's Weatherhead Center. Best send them an email, tell them they don't know what they're talking about.
 * --86.166.180.139 (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Part of Arab world..."
I don't think this source was being used honestly: Tajudeen Abdul Raheem, ed., Pan Africanism: Politics, Economy and Social Change in the Twenty First Century, Pluto Press, London, 1996. No page number was given, and Comoros and Djibouti, for example, are not even mentioned in the book.
 * djibouti
 * comoros

--86.156.119.34 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will ask you to cease edit warring around a topic you clearly do not understand. Wikipedia has a process for disagreement. U do not keep reverting edits, you discuss them first. If a page number is not given! you request one. You do not delete sourced relevant information known to most.--Inayity (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Vandalism? Hardly. I explained my reason for making the edit, and provided links here to demonstrate. It appears, rather, that you don't seem to understand what "Comoros and Djibouti … are not even mentioned in the book" means. Still, thanks for your time. --86.156.119.34 (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * YeOldeGentleman, why are you socking? Honestly, why? That being said, Djibouti and the Comoros are part of the Arav World so there's no point in edit waring when anyone can find a proper source. AcidSnow (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear AcidSnow: I am not edit warring; please, stop with such accusations. I made a revert on the basis of the information available, which, for the third time, was that two relevant pieces of information are not so much as mentioned in the cited source. Are you suggesting the source was being used correctly, that Djibouti and the Comoros were in the book? If not, we can call this issue closed. talk
 * I never accused you of edit warring. I did state, however that "there is no point in editing". As anyone can see I was referring to no one specifically, let alone you. So please don't make things up. Oddly, you don't deny socking. Though it would be wise to refute this instead of making false accusations. You also appear to be the user that was edit waring over and accusing other of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the same exact page not too long ago. That being said, this issue is not resolved since anyone can find a source for this; which you fail to acknowledge. Nor did I ever allude to the book being used in the right way. Until a source is found it won't be resolved. AcidSnow (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Djibouti and Comoros are in the block links after it. At any rate, you indeed shouldn't be using ips, YeOldeGentleman. Also, please remember to sign your own username; I'm not sure why you linked instead to Inayity's page . Middayexpress (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't appear to be the case Midday. Normally when it's failing to sign into their own account own would usually fix their "signature". In fact, when they are called out for socking they they too state that's not the case and it was an accident on their part. However, he instead changed his main account "signature", making it appear that it was never the main account that was involved in this dispute. Not only did he do that but he refused to acknowledge and still had time to make false accusations against me. AcidSnow (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. Middayexpress (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will make the report later today since it seems to still going on. AcidSnow (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Arab world
Shouldn't it be more appropriately worded as "Arabized world"? Seeing as albeit being mostly Arabized; indigenous North African's such as Egyptians, Berbers etc. aren't ethnically Arab. JanderVK (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but Arab world is the common name. Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Sub-Saharan Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130520151340/http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/441990/nuclear_vs_solar_energy_which/ to http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/441990/nuclear_vs_solar_energy_which
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140818090716/http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2009/11/Pages/10112009/11112009_0b22e598b6e14c18b1223669d7c778e7.aspx to http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2009/11/Pages/10112009/11112009_0b22e598b6e14c18b1223669d7c778e7.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140806062334/http://www.buanews.gov.za/news/09/09111213051001 to http://www.buanews.gov.za/news/09/09111213051001
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150803193319/http://www.africanrockart.org/rockafrica/main.html to http://www.africanrockart.org/rockafrica/main.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203003104/http://pages.towson.edu/thompson/Courses/Regional/Reference/SSA.Physical.pdf to http://pages.towson.edu/thompson/Courses/Regional/Reference/SSA.Physical.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120413084510/http://www.transparency.org:80/regional_pages/africa_middle_east/sub_saharan_africa to http://www.transparency.org/regional_pages/africa_middle_east/sub_saharan_africa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Religion section is absolute not in sources given


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


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

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


 * I would say "absurd", but that's putting things mildly. See below for a response. Soupforone (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Third Opinion Request: I have removed your Third Opinion request without response because there is a request for comments already pending in regard to the issues on this page. Please complete that process before commencing a Third Opinion request or other dispute resolution methods. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify the key to the map to the right. It has magenta, green, black and red, but the map shows another black-and-magenta shading which isn't defined. Only one tiny sliver is black, but the black-and-magenta simply doesn't match the black, so what is it? 2604:2000:F22D:5100:1DB5:2A41:5CCB:8D05 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Owen 'Alik Shahadah
A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A Eurocentric terminology
The term 'sub-saharan' is clearly a Eurocentric one, seeing Europe at the top and Africa below. The Earth is spinning in space there is no up or down in reality, it's just a convention to have the North pole at the top. I would like to see this article re-named 'Black Africa' as I see no reason why the peoples of Malawi, Zimbabwe, Nigeria et al. should be considered 'sub' anything. I would like to read other editors thoughts on this.  Smokey TheCat  10:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * More than half of Africa, too, is north of the equator and therefore has the north star above the horizon and the south celestial pole below. — Trans-Saharan has occurred to me as an alternative; less derogatory but more Eurocentric. — But Sub-S is the common term, and it's not Wikipedia's job to "correct" that. —Tamfang (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * THe only thing that puzzles me here is someone wants to take the horrible term of Sub-Africa and change it to the racist even more horrible term of Black Africa. It is like going from African-American to Negro. Because that is what Smokey is almost suggesting. To change from a bad Eurocentric term to a worst and even more racist Eurocentric term. Who uses Black Africa? See Red Indian for how offensive that term was. But if you can see one as Eurocentric how is it mentally possible to be comfortable with Black Africa which comes out of the Dark Continental view of the Colonial mind (cuz that is where Black Africa comes from, the people are black the continent is dark-black and primitive). plus how many African are the color black? So why would "black" be the definitive adjective to define a human being? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Sub Saharan Africa is a nonsense, useless, and anti-African term. 'Black' African is worse. Ever heard yellow Asian, or red Hispanic? No? Because it makes no fuc**ng sense. If you say Asian, everyone knows who you're talking about, and there's no confusion that Europeans or Africans living in Asia are Asians -- they are Euro-Asians, and Afri-Asians. The same standard should be used here. Africans are people who are ethnically African -- that is, have an African state as their historical place of origin. Arabs living in Africa are Arabic residents or citizens of African states. 74.88.41.205 (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * YES, my fellow editors! Mea Culpa. I fully accept now that 'black Africa' would have been a very, very bad terminology. We all make mistakes. I'm still deeply unhappy with 'Sub-saharan' as a wording tho, for the reason mentioned above. I might consider 'Trans-Saharan' as the above  editor suggests. Other possibilities that occur to me are 'Non-Arabian Africa' or 'Christian Africa'; both problematic I concede, and the second not strictly accurate, given the Muslim nature of Northern Nigeria to name but one country. I can't think of any better just now. But I hope that other editors share my frustration with this present wording and I am open to other, hopefully better, phrasings.  Smokey  TheCat  02:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the term ought to be "Australsahara" (south of Sahara), much as Australasia means "south of Asia". 2001:450:1F:224:899C:5D1D:73B2:B2B2 (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Lay's comment on this article
Dr. Lay has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Note that I have commented only on teh parts, on which I felt qualified to comment.

“As of 2011, Africa is one of the fastest developing regions in the world. Six of the world's ten fastest-growing economies over the previous decade were situated below the Sahara, with the remaining four in East and Central Asia. Between 2011 and 2015, the economic growth rate of the average nation in Africa is expected to surpass that of the average nation in Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa is by then projected to contribute seven out of the ten fastest growing economies in the world.[109] According to the World Bank, the economic growth rate in the region had risen to 4.7% in 2013, with a rate of 5.2% forecasted for 2014. This continued rise was attributed to increasing investment in infrastructure and resources as well as steady expenditure per household.[110]” Needs an update and possibly a more nuanced view that takes into account the very heterogeneous growth experiences of Sub-Saharan countries. See for example Kappel (2014) https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/system/files/publications/gf_international_1401.pdf. References could be expanded to include also the African Economic Outlook by the OECD (http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/). After the above paragraph follows a description of the “African economy” by “sector” starting with energy and power, followed by media, infrastructure, oil and minerals, and agriculture. This is a very strange way of describing the “sectors” of an economy. Why not follow the standard aggregation of industries: agriculture, mining, manufacturing, services (the latter then maybe with subsectors)? In addition, if the order is related to importance is should definitely start with agriculture. Some (very selective) references: On agriculture: http://www.un.org/en/africa/osaa/pdf/pubs/2013africanagricultures.pdf (here maybe also some reference to “land grabbing” may be interesting to readers: Anseeuw, W., Boche, M., Breu, T., Giger, M., Lay, J., Messerli, P., & Nolte, K. (2012). Transnational land deals for agriculture in the global South. Analytical Report based on the Land Matrix Database. On manufacturing: https://www.odi.org/comment/10382-why-african-manufacturing-doing-better-you-think This could be followed by sections on energy and infrastructure before turning to the social sectors education and health. “Education[edit] The University of Botswana's Earth Science building in Gaborone, Botswana. Forty percent of African scientists live in OECD countries, predominantly in Europe, the United States and Canada.[142] This has been described as an African brain drain. According to Naledi Pandor, the South African Minister of Science and Technology, even with the drain enrollments in Sub-Saharan African universities tripled between 1991 and 2005, expanding at an annual rate of 8.7%, which is one of the highest regional growth rates in the world. In the last 10 to 15 years interest in pursuing university level degrees abroad has increased. In some OECD countries, like the United States, Sub-Saharan Africans are the most educated immigrant group.[142]

The University of Antananarivo in Antananarivo, Madagascar. According to the CIA, low global literacy rates are concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa, West Asia and South Asia. However, the literacy rates in Sub-Saharan Africa vary significantly between countries. The highest registered literacy rate in the region is in Zimbabwe (90.7%; 2003 est.), while the lowest literacy rate is in South Sudan (27%).[143] Sub-Saharan African countries spent an average of 0.3% of their GDP on science and technology on in 2007. This represents an increase from US$1.8 billion in 2002 to US$2.8 billion in 2007, a 50% increase in spending.[144][145]” In my view, it is inappropriate to start an article on education in Africa with a reference to brain drain. I would suggest to first describe the schooling system (which tends to be similar to any other parts in the world) and provide some evidence in terms of its performance (enrollment, but also student achievements – with the latter probably shocking to many who do not know.). Then, some facts about universities, maybe also highlighting some of the best (or, well-known) ones, would also be good (for example, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/best-universities-in-africa-2016). Some references for the schooling system and its performance: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/regional-survey-ssa.aspx http://www.aaionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AAI-SOE-report-2015-final.pdf

“Health care[edit] Further information: HIV/AIDS in Africa The Komfo Anokye Hospital in Kumasi, Ghana. In 1987, the Bamako Initiative conference organised by the World Health Organization was held in Bamako, the capital of Mali, and helped reshape the health policy of Sub-Saharan Africa.[146] The new strategy dramatically increased accessibility through community-based healthcare reform, resulting in more efficient and equitable provision of services. A comprehensive approach strategy was extended to all areas of health care, with subsequent improvement in the health care indicators and improvement in health care efficiency and cost.[147][148] In 2011, Sub-Saharan Africa was home to 69% of all people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide.[149] In response, a number of initiatives have been launched to educate the public on HIV/AIDS. Among these are combination prevention programmes, considered to be the most effective initiative, the abstinence, be faithful, use a condom campaign, and the Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation's outreach programs.[150] According to a 2013 special report issued by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the number of HIV positive people in Africa receiving anti-retroviral treatment in 2012 was over seven times the number receiving treatment in 2005, with an almost 1 million added in the last year alone.[151][152]:15 The number of AIDS-related deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2011 was 33 percent less than the number in 2005.[153] The number of new HIV infections in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2011 was 25 percent less than the number in 2001.[153] Estimated prevalence in % of HIV among young adults (15–49) per country as of 2011.[154] Malaria is an endemic illness in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the majority of malaria cases and deaths worldwide occur.[155] Routine immunization has been introduced in order to prevent measles.[156] Onchocerciasis ("river blindness"), a common cause of blindness, is also endemic to parts of the region. More than 99% of people affected by the illness worldwide live in 31 countries therein.[157] In response, the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) was launched in 1995 with the aim of controlling the disease.[157] Maternal mortality is another challenge, with more than half of maternal deaths in the world occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa.[158] However, there has generally been progress here as well, as a number of countries in the region have halved their levels of maternal mortality since 1990.[158] Additionally, the African Union in July 2003 ratified the Maputo Protocol, which pledges to prohibit female genital mutilation (FGM).[159] National health systems vary between countries. In Ghana, most health care is provided by the government and largely administered by the Ministry of Health and Ghana Health Services. The healthcare system has five levels of providers: health posts which are first level primary care for rural areas, health centers and clinics, district hospitals, regional hospitals and tertiary hospitals. These programs are funded by the government of Ghana, financial credits, Internally Generated Fund (IGF), and Donors-pooled Health Fund.[160]”

Overall, this part on health is, again, fairly poor. In particular, it could be better structured. I would first refer to health outcomes (using some statistics with interesting averages, but also show the huge variation). This should entail both a message of still very bad outcome in part of the continent (HIV/AIDS in Southern Africa or child mortality in some more fragile parts and the Sahel zone). Yet, stories of progress, for example in child mortality reduction, can also be told (see http://www.data.unicef.org/resources/levels-and-trends-in-child-mortality-2015.html). Here, reference could be made to some interventions (vaccination campaigns, or anti-retroviral treatment). On FGM, it has to added how little progress has been made (http://www.unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf)."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Lay has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Grimm, Michael & Hartwig, Renate & Lay, Jann, 2013. "Does Forced Solidarity Hamper Investment in Small and Micro Enterprises?," IZA Discussion Papers 7229, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Poor Reasoning?
The lead paragraph:

"Sub-Saharan Africa is, geographically, the area of the continent of Africa that lies south of the Sahara desert. According to the UN, it consists of all African countries that are fully or partially located south of the Sahara

It contrasts with North Africa, whose Arab states are part of the Arab world.

Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros and Mauritania are geographically part of Sub-Saharan Africa, but are Arab states and a part of the Arab world.[3]"

If there are Arab states that are part of the Arab world in North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, then we really have not pointed out any contrast:

"Sub-Saharan Africa is, geographically, the area of the continent of Africa that lies south of the Sahara desert. According to the UN, it consists of all African countries that are fully or partially located south of the Sahara.[2] It contrasts with North Africa. Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros and Mauritania are geographically part of Sub-Saharan Africa.[3]"

It is poor writing, at best.

The cited UN source actually lists five areas in Africa; North Africa, West Africa, South Africa, East Africa and Central Africa. The term "Sub-Saharan Africa" is literally a footnote.

Alienkind (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is Nubia included?
Southern Egypt and North Sudan is not sub-Saharan Africa. It's Saharan Africa. Just because Nubians 'look black' doesn't make them sub-Saharans. Steeletrap (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa isn't inhabited by one ancestral population, but rather several different ethnolinguistic groups. Nubia is in Sudan, which is part of the UN's Sub-Saharan geographical region. Soupforone (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Sub-Saharan Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927112328/http://www.africannewsworld.com/2009/07/contemptuousness-of-sub-saharan-africa.html to http://www.africannewsworld.com/2009/07/contemptuousness-of-sub-saharan-africa.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/weilue/weilue.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150917115717/https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/pages/download/43 to http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/pages/download/43
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615092341/http://southsudaninfo.net/wp-content/uploads/reference_library/reports/5th_population_housing_census_sudan.pdf to http://southsudaninfo.net/wp-content/uploads/reference_library/reports/5th_population_housing_census_sudan.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021044246/http://www.somraf.org/research%20Matrerials/joint%20british%20danish%20dutch%20fact%20finding%20mission%20in%20Nairobi%20-%202001.pdf to http://www.somraf.org/research%20Matrerials/joint%20british%20danish%20dutch%20fact%20finding%20mission%20in%20Nairobi%20-%202001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161126162127/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cd.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cd.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120918135821/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5666&title=latin-america-medellin-colombia-microfinance-post-washington-consensus-microcredit-microenterprise-local-development to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5666&title=latin-america-medellin-colombia-microfinance-post-washington-consensus-microcredit-microenterprise-local-development
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114155727/http://www.killerplants.com/plants-that-changed-history/20020226.asp to http://www.killerplants.com/plants-that-changed-history/20020226.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727182253/http://www.dst.gov.za/media-room/press-releases/south-africa2019s-investment-in-research-and-development-on-the-rise to http://www.dst.gov.za/media-room/press-releases/south-africa2019s-investment-in-research-and-development-on-the-rise
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008211344/http://www.medicusmundi.ch/mms/services/bulletin/bulletin200201/kap01/07kuechler.html to http://www.medicusmundi.ch/mms/services/bulletin/bulletin200201/kap01/07kuechler.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116014630/https://www.desmondtutuhivcentre.org.za/page/work/ to http://www.desmondtutuhivcentre.org.za/page/work
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620035055/http://cdcdevelopmentsolutions.org/africa to http://www.cdcdevelopmentsolutions.org/africa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930230930/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2009%2C1001.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2009%2C1001.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512233445/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do we still use the term “sub-Saharan Africa”?
https://qz.com/770350/why-do-we-still-say-subsaharan-africa/ prokaryotes (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sub-Loirean France / Sub-Loirean European
Try it - bet they don't like it even though it works as a designation. And that is because it has connotations to the word: Sub-Saharan. So yes the word: Sub-Saharan/Sub-Sahara does indeed bear negative connotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.88.45 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sahara was a massive, largely impenetrable barrier genetically and culturally until the domestication of certain animals in past 6,000 years
"In the southern Negev Desert speleothems did not grow between 185–140 kya (MIS 6), 110-90 (MIS 5.4-5.2), nor after 85 kya nor during most of the interglacial period (MIS 5.1), the glacial period and Holocene. This suggests that the southern Negev was arid to hyper-arid in these periods." (Vaks, Anton; Bar-Matthews, Miryam; Ayalon, Avner; Matthews, Alan; Halicz, Ludwik; Frumkin, Amos (2007). "Desert speleothems reveal climatic window for African exodus of early modern humans" (PDF). Geology. 35 (9): 831. Bibcode:2007Geo....35..831V. doi:10.1130/G23794A.1)

"The coastal route around the western Mediterranean may have been open at times during the last glacial; speleothems grew in Hol-Zakh and in Nagev Tzavoa Caves. Comparison of speleothem formation with calcite horizons suggests that the wet periods were limited to only tens or hundreds of years."

From 60–30 kya there were extremely dry conditions in many parts of Africa, not just the Sahara.

Between 60,000 ya and 3,000 ya, there was a massive physical and genetic barrier in the Sahara. Over this time, European, Middle Eastern and North coast African (Berbers, Egyptians) ethnic groups developed genetically distinct (including their own features) from all other human groups, including acquiring some genetic material from Neanderthals which they only possess. 95% of Berber population lives along the northern coast, incredibly close to Europe but thousands of miles distant from sub-Saharan Africa and black African populations.

Domesticated animals capable of allowing any kind of limited travel across the Sahara were only domesticated in the past 4,000 years. Nearly all domesticated animals used for civilization were from outside Africa, with the exception of donkeys, which were domesticated first in Egypt and Ethiopia only in the past 2000 years. Horses for example are native to central Asia, and were only brought to Egypt from the Middle East after as recent as 1500 BC. Camels were only brought to Egypt circa 500 BC. Even Oxen (domesticated cattle) are native to the Middle East, Iran and Caucasus area, and were only introduced into North Africa by proto-Berber people (early Afro-Asiatics) from only 8,000 - 6,000 BC. For some 50,000 - 60,000 years (roughly 60,000 BC to 5,000 BC), the Sahara was impenetrable and not traversed by human beings, except only for a handful of brief periods in the Nile valley region. Even the Nile was impenetrable for most of the period because of the cataracts, and arid times when even much of the Nile dried up, not to mention other hazards.

Even in southern Africa, there was a major physical and genetic barrier between the aboriginal semi-arid Khoisan peoples (Capoid) and the tropical west/central African Bantu (Negroid) who only entered southern Africa in the past 3,000-4,000 years during the Bantu migrations. The Khoisan peoples today have genetic features not shared with other human groups for up to 100,000 years resulting from a very long period of isolation from other African groups, let alone non-African groups. 2607:FEA8:1C60:14E:3481:9F53:AA5E:C510 (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. The claim of an impenetrable Sahara barrier is also obviously incorrect - see |Haplogroup E1b1b. Soupforone (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sub-Loirean France a major physical and genetic barrier by dint of the Loire river. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.88.45 (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Mention of 'Black Africa' deleted?
It seems the once common term 'Black Africa' has been thoroughly deleted from this article...? Look, I completely agree that it is an offensive term nowadays, but in an article that also attempts to include the history of this concept, you cannot simply leave it out (esp. if you include Arabic 'bilâd as-sûdân' which has a similar meaning). --Ubel (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bilad as-Sudan is discussed on Sudan (region). It comprised a specific portion of Africa below the Sahara rather than the entire area. There were also other territories such as Al-Habash, Barbara, Zanj and Cafraria. See Leo Africanus . Soupforone (talk)
 * Thanks for your answer but I think you missed my point which was not about Bilâd as-Sûdân as such. I just said it's odd to include e.g. that term (or any other former name, like Habash etc.), but to omit 'Black Africa' from this article because 'Black Africa' was pretty common for the region in Western discourse up until the 1950s. It's the term that you're most likely to encounter in classical (19th & early 20th c.) ethnographic and linguistic literature, so I just wondered why it's not mentioned. I know it's offensive to most people nowadays, but because of its historical prevalence and importance, it should at least be mentioned in the article. --Ubel (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. What I meant is that the antiquated term Bilad as-Sudan/Black Africa usually did not apply to the entire area south of the Sahara, but rather to certain portions of it depending on the inhabitants. It didn't apply to Al-Habash and the Barbara/Adel area, which Leo Africanus indicates was predominantly inhabited by Abassins (Abyssinians) and Arabians, respectively. However, it did apparently apply to the Zanj/Zanjibar and Cafraria territories, which Leo Africanus indicates was predominantly inhabited by the Cafri, a people he equates with "Negro". These nuances are touched on in the etymology. Soupforone (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think 'Bilâd as-Sûdân' and 'Black Africa' are the same. They should be treated and mentioned separately. It might very well be that 'Bilâd as-Sûdân' was more restricted in meaning; I'm no expert on that term. But 'Black Africa', as it was used by Western researchers etc. in the 19th/20th c., was definitely applied to the whole continent south of the Sahara and thus is different from 'Bilâd as-Sûdân'. Just have a look at a random assortment of GoogleBooks titles: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22black+africa%22 --Ubel (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean; you are alluding to the colonial period. I've added a brief note on the toponym. Soupforone (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! I also added a clarifying sentence. --Ubel (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how Google Ngrams works. It indicates how often a term appeared in Google book results, not how that term was actually used or its meaning in relation to other terms (ex. ). The Donald George url also doesn't indicate that Black Africa was the most common term for the region in Western discourse before it was deemed insensitive. Anyway, I've fixed the duplicate toponym per WP:COLLOQUIAL. Soupforone (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)4
 * You're right, the source didn't cover exactly this. I will try to rephrase that. My point was just that I found it odd that one of the more common terms (maybe not THE most common term, admitted) of the recent past, which has apparently seen quite widespread use in academic publications etc, is not mentioned at all, but that rare or obsolete terms like Habash and Zanj are. (Just to clarify: I don't think, they should be excluded, I just thought it's weird that the other term is omitted.) Also, I understand why you reverted the edit but I don't really get the reference to WP:COLLOQUIAL. Could you explain that? --Ubel (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As your Google Ngram link shows, the toponym Black Africa was actually in common usage for just a brief period in the late 1970s, and not necessarily as an equivalent of Sub-Saharan Africa. Both terms are essentially later 20th century coinages, with the difference being that Sub-Saharan Africa is still in wide usage whereas Black Africa has been rapidly moving toward extinction. The latter toponym is also not comparable to historical toponyms like Al-Habash and Zanj, which (a) are described in actual ancient manuscripts, and (b) represent different areas below the Sahara inhabited by unrelated ancestral groups. Anyway, the toponym Black Africa was/is mentioned in its appropriate context and weighting as an equivalent of Tropical Africa. A duplicate toponym phrase is undue and redundant per WP:COLLOQUIAL ("a recapitulation of the original thesis in different wording[...] is redundant and brow-beating, and should not be used in encyclopedic writing"). Soupforone (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The period was longer, as is also evident in Ngram, but all in all, you're right. Thanks for the patience though. --Ubel (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Soupforone (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Linguistic diversity
Sub-Saharan Africa is not particularly diverse linguistically, in comparison to its geographical area. See Languages of India, languages of the Philippines, Papuan languages, and any of various articles on Amerindian languages for better examples of internal diversity. Just along the coast of northern California, for example, there are five unrelated language families: Hokan, Penutian, Algonquian, Na-Dené , and Yuki-Wappo. This is the same number of families shown on our map as comprising the entirety of Africa. — Soap — 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Health care" Section
This article is very useful in terms of its relevance and significance. However, the article would be even more useful if the "Health care" section was expanded as an individual article rather than included as a subheading topic. This would allow for detailed information regarding the healthcare sector to be provided for each country within the region of Sub-Saharan Africa, rather than summarized for the entire region (which might be difficult given its geographic expanse and variation across nations). FrancessO (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Civilization & writing
User:Inayity, I believe the first paragraph in the history section is problematic, as it appears to equate usage of the wheel and plow with civilization. In so doing, it ignores that most early populations in the region were actually hunter-gatherers or pastoralists, who would have had no real use for these farming inventions. The passage also gives an inaccurate rendering of the early writing systems. There was/is also some redundant and outdated material. Reading this, one would never know that the parts of Africa below the Sahara had civilization, and that the continent as a whole is the fastest developing region in the world today. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * After a search of the talk page I see that this is not the first time this issue has been raised. It almost seems like the entire constructions is to take Africa out of history and civilization.--Inayity (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Section removed as it seems to be added in bad taste and per the above remark makes denies African historical contribution. Not only is it unbalanced it is inaccurate. (others in Africa created scripts). What is this thing about the Wheel? Why is it there, what is the purpose of the information? It is basically saying "Africa did not even invent the Wheel", and Africans below some imaginary line were doing absolutely nothing until Whites came.(the very people who created the line). That is all it is saying. "Of no historical worth" David Hume--Inayity (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's indeed nonsense. There's more stuff like it, though. Middayexpress (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seek and destroy, cuz this kind of stuff compromises the quality of Wikipedia.--Inayity (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed; just cleaned up a bit more. Please have a look though, as I may have missed some more of the dredge. Middayexpress (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "User:Inayity, I believe the first paragraph in the history section is problematic, as it appears to equate usage of the wheel and plow with civilization. In so doing, it ignores that most early populations in the region were actually hunter-gatherers or pastoralists, who would have had no real use for these farming inventions. " By that logic no culture should have ever advanced beyond being hunter-gatherers as hunter gathers do not require any other society-developing technology (by your own logic). That is absurd non-sequitur. The lack of technological innovation in the sub-Saharan region is a important piece of relevant information, and shows why colonialists were able to take advantage of the region using technology centuries beyond what was in use in the region at the time. You are being niased with this omission; and are likewise ignoring historical relevant disparity between sub-Saharan technology and the majority of other cultures technological development at the time of colonization, and in times before. This is an omission that inhibits ones understanding of the region in an attempt somehow protect political sensitivities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.5.150.41 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "most early populations in the region were actually hunter-gatherers or pastoralists, who would have had no real use for these farming inventions…" Most early populations everywhere were hunter-gatherers, so what's your point?
 * "The passage also gives an inaccurate rendering of the early writing systems." Please, enlighten us. Also make sure you send an email to the guys at Harvard, tell them that Middayexpress on Wikipedia knows better.
 * "…the fastest developing region in the world today…" It's the history section; talking about today is hardly germaine.
 * "the entire constructions is to take Africa out of history and civilization…" Amazing how two sourced sentences can do this, despite links to entire articles on African civilisations.
 * "others in Africa created scripts…" Systems of writing. It speaks of systems of writing, not the total absence of scripts elsewhere.
 * "denies African historical contribution…" How does it? Simply because you say so, apparently.
 * "this kind of stuff compromises the quality of Wikipedia…" Sourced material (Harvard's Weatherhead Center) compromises the quality of Wikipedia?
 * Does anyone have anything substantive to offer than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? What a lot of fuss over two sentences.
 * --86.166.180.139 (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If no fuss then we have decided to leave it off. Just because someone at Harvard writes something down on piece of paper and publishes it does not mean it automatically gets included in an article on Sub-Saharan article. Please push it on this article Wheel. Yes because "we say so" that is why we are editors.--Inayity (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Dr. Amanda Carlson of Indiana University's archaeological work for the Smithsonian Institution . Middayexpress (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization?
Miriam-Webster does not capitalize the initial letter in sub-Saharan. Cerberus (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither does Collins, Oxford Learners or Cambridge. Dan (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Somalia and Djibouti
There seems to be contradictory information in the article; on one hand you have Somalia and Djibouti coloured green indicating these countries as part of Sub-Saharan Africa as used by UN institutions then on the other hand the opening paragraph ends with “The UN Development Program lists 46 of Africa’s 54 countries as “sub-Saharan,” excluding Algeria, Djibouti, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Sudan and Tunisia. [4]”.

Which is it? MusIbr (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Negro Africa missing (the original scientific historical name for the region)
Could someone more knowledgeable and tactful than me research it and add this information (if I am indeed correct)? As far as I can gather, Google Books agrees with me that Negro Africa was the original (albeit now historical) term - link.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sub-Loirean France
If there is a Sub-Saharan Africa

Then why not a Sub-Loirean France

Or a Sub-Loirean Europe

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.249.155 (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Thanks for this. Good point. Perhaps a European-wide feature would be the Alpine Orogeny running from the Pyrennees to Thrace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_orogeny
 * That'd make for "North Europe" vs. "Sub-Alpine Europe."
 * Asia would be "North Asia" vs. "Sub-Taurean Asia" (Strabo called the entire West-East trans-Asian mountain range the Taurus)
 * The Americas would be "North America" vs. "Sub-Isthmian America"
 * Yeah, those names are all directionally sub-par (=derogatory). Lame. Traversetravis (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FrancessO.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)