Change to Common Era dating sytem[edit]

I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system next week. If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I see no reason to change per MOS:VAR. Masterhatch (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree. Great initiative: --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, as User:Eupnevma brought this up on multiple pages, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says don't change without a good reason, but here there is a good reason. History of Africa, not a Western topic. And most recent scholarly work uses CE/BCE. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this user brought this up on multiple pages, I think it's something that should be discussed in one spot--that being at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Masterhatch (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for not a western topic, that's not how wikipedia divides things up. Imagine the fights that would happen if we went down religious lines for styles? As for scholarly work, wikipedia isn't just for scholars but regular people too. And as far as I know in everyday life, BC and AD are still more common. Masterhatch (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is divided up in all sorts of ways, and we see here that one of those ways is by continent. Wikipedia is to be read by non-scholars, yes, absolutely, but those who take an interest in history will certainly be encountering CE/BCE - which precisely does not go down religious lines. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "...but here there is a good reason. History of Africa, not a Western topic." Not sure what you mean by that in the sense of how it relates to the use of AD, BC, CE, BCE. I don't think AD & BC are exclusive to the West. Christianity (if that's what you're implying) has been in Africa for 2,000 years and, for example, Alexandria was a major Christian centre for hundreds of years. As it sits today, Christianity is the largest religion in Africa and it makes up about half the population. The MoS is clear that both styles are acceptable and MOS:VAR is equally clear "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" -- key on substantial reason. "History of Africa, not a Western topic" is hardly a substantial reason, IMHO. Masterhatch (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single source in section "Historiographic and Conceptual Problems"[edit]

It seems like this section is just summarizing the results of a single academic's work (published in two papers). In addition, the opening of the section calls out this academic by name and seems to function as an advertisement of his work more than an objective summary of the field. Is this section really appropriate? If so, should it be condensed? 130.132.173.122 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree--a long section based on two articles by an obscure writer needs proof of impact on the scholarly field. I just dropped the whole section. Rjensen (talk)
It seems like there is a lot of valuable information here -- and while I didn't see a problem with it, I can see that people might feel it could be trimmed and curated, but to delete the entire section seems excessive. I'm restoring so it can be worked on. -- Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval and modern era[edit]

Is it worth expanding this section a bit to summarise the main article Medieval and early modern Africa?

At the moment I do think this section is very bare and I don't think its content is logical or broad enough, I find the paragraph on the Xhosa, whilst excluding all other ethnic groups, very strange Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And possibly even separating it into two sections, Medieval era (CE 500-1500) and Early modern era (1500-1800), as there's just so much content that I imagine would be difficult to summarise without either ignoring the difference in pace of state formation/centralisation between and within regions or ignoring some regions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Africa in 1800 BC[edit]

I can't figure out what Wawat is as there wasn't an Upper Egyptian/Nubian state at this time as far as I can tell. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories