Talk:White Africans of European ancestry/Archive 1

Problem with the statistic of CIA

Big Problem with the statistic of CIA.

A french can be black or brown...so when you read 20.000 french people in Gabon, it does'nt mean 20.000 White, but 20.000 french people...

Sorry you are wrong, when they say French it means White French in this context, not people of French nationality.

No, it's doesn't mean that, i live in Congo, and i m mixed, for the statistic, i m french, cause i ve the nationality, cause my father is french, so you are totally wrong.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephabradshaw (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 

And how are people who are only part-European non-Whites? 124.187.66.172 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

that's the way it has been defined by those who call themselves white —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.184.105 (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.1.3.7 (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No Arabs?

===>No Arabs? Why aren't Arabs included in this article, as they are Semites, and consequently white people? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Beacause Arabs are not white!!! Arabs = people from Arabia or most muslims in the Middel East. Christains in the Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, and most of the Middel East excluding Arabia would be included as they have no Arab blood because Arabs were killed if they turned to Christianity because of Islamic law. Arabs may be of the Caucasian race but they are not accepted as white. Unless you confusingly were to count the christians as Arabs, which they are NOT!!!

The arab question is a very relative matter. In the U.S., Arabs are legally defined as white people, but this may differ from country to country.

WTF? Now even the Arabs want to pass as white!!! In Southern Europe, where the whites have dark hair, tanned skin and are considered by some Nordicists as non whites, the white people there called the Arabs and Berbers Moros/Mouros from the Latin, meaning black.

Arabs were never white and you will never be! Also, it is difficult to classify any muslim as white. White does not equal Caucasian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Arabs and Jews are White, it is evident, above all in Lebanon and Syria where there is less mixture with imported African slaves the same way as Americans, Spaniards, British and Portuguese did. There was an strong slave commerce from Central Africa and in Mauritania black slavery lasted until the 80s of the XX Century. As a consequence, as happened in Puerto Rico, the population has assimilated the African contribution which still makes over 20% of the genetic of White Puerto Ricans, North African Arabs or Brazilians. Also in the U.S. the Black minority is 20% White genetically but they are considered black...White Americans in the future will look very similar to Arabs or Puerto Ricans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.243.144 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

some arabs look black because many of them brought slaves from east africa, thats why when we look for saudi football team for example it include many blacks, but that does not mean the people of arabian peninsula are black, they look more to italian-greek. they black slaves were arabized long time ago and even in arabia it self they have some racism aganist black people. black sudanese called the other arabs as a "white arabs". and sudan it self mean the land of black people. so we cant say that original arabs are black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.215.117.216 (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

--71.191.104.178 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what....It's a shame that everyone on this website looks down so badly on darker skinned Africans. Why did i not say "Black"? Because apparently everyone in this article claims that dark skinned people are only DARK because they had sex with slaves long ago.

I have news for you people...Italians are DARK because much of Italy was CONQUERED by NORTH AFRICANS in the EARLY stages of the Roman empire. Same thing with Spain and Greece and other European countries. The differences in Africans do not come from them being "mixed" with white. It comes from Africans being the original people and having the oldest and most widely variant genetics in the world. People tend to forget that being WHITE is a recessive trait. Arabians lightened because they were subject to conquering by europeans in various stages of history. they themselves are not white.

To the poster above

Are you dumb? The idea of Arabs being called White clearly stirred a nerve in you. You typed it like a junior high girl types gossip over e-mail. I'm not Arab and even I think you're an idiot. Caucasian is sufficient enough to be called white. People who call themselves Arabs, run a range of blonde hair (ever seen the picture of the blonde haired, blue eyed crying Palestinian girl?) to essentially black (the Arabs of Sudan for example). It's a matter of what to call each sub-group. Second - Christianity is older than Islam, there were Arab Christian tribes before there were Arab Muslim tribes. Sure Arabs nowadays may be killed for converting, but you happily neglect Arab Christians who have been Christians for centuries. (More Arab Christians were killed in the Crusades than Arab Muslims because the genius crusaders - of your similar low intellect level - thought skin color was an indication of religion.)

And yeah, Arabs and Turks are technically categorized as White in the United States.

" * Beacause Arabs are not white!!! Arabs = people from Arabia or most muslims in the Middel East. Christains in the Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, and most of the Middel East excluding Arabia would be included as they have no Arab blood because Arabs were killed if they turned to Christianity because of Islamic law. Arabs may be of the Caucasian race but they are not accepted as white. Unless you confusingly were to count the christians as Arabs, which they are NOT!!!"

- thats a dumb answer, to put it simply. Another way to put it would be bigoted.

It is a good question and one which should be examined further I think. Perhaps one should refer to the debate on the Wiki entry for 'white person' for some insight into an answer. For the time being it seems to mean White Europeans, although many African countries do have small Lebanese populations which are often referred to as white, largely because they have assimilated into larger white society in countries like South Africa. In country without a significant white community, I can't say. Either way, asking why Arabs aren't included is a good question. --Discott 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To the guy who said that Arabs are white because they are Caucasian: Are you stupid or what!!! Etihopians and Indians are Caucasian too! And the vast majority f Indans are not white! They are essencially Dravidian peoples. Only a tiny minority of Indians who have their Indo European blood relativeley pure can be considered as white. Concearning Ethiopians, yes they are white, no doubt! Also, you speak of a Palestinian blond girl. Ok, one!!! So, don't you know that there were many Europeans or Indo European groups in that region? Mmany Christian Lebanese and some costal Syrians would pass as white. Few Palestinians would. Also, blond hair is a childish trait, it goes way wth age. According to antropologists, 98% of German(ic) children have blond hair when they are young. Even in Southern Europe, in oplacs like the Iberian Peninsula where blond hair in adulthood is rare (some 10%), 25% of the children have blond hair when they are young. Also, being white is belonging to a cultural sphere as much as to a biological sphere and Palestinians don't belong to neither of them. The same to Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure if the name of the article has changed since this debate, however it is currently called "White Africans of European Descent" making the question of whether Arabs and North Africans are white completely irrelevant as the scope of this article is limited only to whites of European origin. 98.245.85.161 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

uhmSzyeah<3

this article is cute and all, but why isn't there a Black African one i wonder?

There is one about Black people in Europe.

• Well, there isn't a "White European" article either. -LtNOWIS 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think there should be both. Why not be bold, Mr. or Ms. Anon? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I added the infobox today, with population figures from the individual countries' articles and the CIA World Factbook. Since many of the figures differ, I put down the upper and lower ranges given. DBQer 02:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not an ethnic group or a nation. Get rid of it. michael ^talk 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is WP:OR, which verges on White supremacism (as if pieds-noirs belonged to the same "ethnic group" as Boers - this is ridiculous!). Lapaz 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, White supremacism? An infobox? How, exactly? I merely put the numbers that were listed later on in the article into an infobox, checking their agreement with the individual articles and the CIA factbook. If you look at different ethnic groups, they all use the infobox format. I am putting the infobox back in until someone can give some sort of justification as to why it should be removed. Also the "French people in Africa" section was removed w/o discussion. I am returning that as well. DBQer 02:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite the Boers and the Pied Noirs are not the same ethnic group, they have more in common with each other than with any other Afric group. Whites meingle to form a European ethnicity, the White Africans, independent of their European differences. It is what happened in America too, you moron!

Don't forget that we also have an article on Afro-Europeans, and there is clearly more diversity among African peoples than among European peoples. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Black African Bias

This article, despite what has been said earlier on in this talk page, is bordering on a Black African bias, the most insulting example of which is the new title. Last time I checked, this was located at the page White African. Unfortunately, some politically incorrect idiot moved it to "European African". As a White Zimbabwean (living in America, unwillingly and unfortunately), this is highly insulting and both factually and politically incorrect. We are called "White Africans", not "European Africans".

My own ancestry, while admittedly is ultimately drawn from Europe (Britain and the Netherlands), is directly linked to two places: South Africa and Australia. At the first post-majority rule census, my family and I marked out where they had defined us as "White" and put "African". We have been in Africa for hundreds of years (my own family can trace our ancesry in Africa since 1652). I've only been to Europe once, but you're labelling me as a European simply because of the colour of my skin. It's outrageous and racist!

Actually, I agree. William Reynolds 20:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The community decendend from South Asia in Southern Africa are classified as Indian Africans not Brown Africans so I don't see the problem with European African. It is merely stating an African of European origin just as Indian African is African of Indian Origin. In that case is the term African American offensive and racist to some people ?172.200.118.54 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You stupid white Africans! Have you already wonder why you are white? Maybe it is because you are of European descent and thus you are not Africans, you are Europeans living in Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"You stupid white Africans! Have you already wonder why you are white? Maybe it is because you are of European descent and thus you are not Africans, you are Europeans living in Africa." Firstly, there is no need for the insults, they only act to reduce peoples respect for you and your argument (as well as needlessly annoy people). Secondly, not all "White Africans" come from Europe, some people who are considered White Africans also come from Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Albania. None of these countries, except perhaps Turkey, are in Europe. --Discott (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Albania is in Europe, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.140.120 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ment to say "Armeania" not "Albania," my mistake. --Discott (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it may be true that many "White Africans" are of Middle Eastern origin, this article only mentions the Lebanese once and barely even gives the Arabs and Berbers of North Africa a sentence. And Mr. Anonymous White Zimbabwean, you're "white" based on the color of your skin, hm? So are all fair-skinned people Whites? What about this and this? White is generally used in the Western world to refer to someone descended from one of the European peoples. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Disgusting, shame on you, grow up

I'm not black or white...but look at the disgusting White African bias here "tens of thousands driven off their lands and property"

You're either evil, out of your mind, or both. It was never their property - how dare colonizers, imperialists, murderers, thieves, rapists, and racists refer to that as "their property" and "their lands"? Sure the killings were unnecessary and rather tragic, but then again, they reaped what they sowed, and I guess you could say the native Africans learned by the superb EUROPEAN example.

Consider it stolen property being confiscated from the thieves.

Cecil Rhodes' "vision" came to an end? What was his vision? "I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race."

That was his vision? A vision of inequality and slavery. Whoever wrote this, and whoever agrees with this, shame on you, you're disgusting, you deserved whatever you got, boohoo your family had their illegally occupied farm taken away? Cry me a river.

May God have mercy on your butchering, thieving souls, the lot of you! (Or your ancestors souls I guess?) (The Bible teaches equality doesn't it?)

^ Many you are stupid. If thats what you perceive you have some problems, man.

Where on earth did the above bigoted comment come from? I fail to see how this entry is relevant to this article in any way. Please remove it or explain how it is relevant or I will remove it my self. --Discott 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that me and my ancestors are being called Racist Bigots, While sadly I cannot say this of other European countries, Britain was the first country IN THE WORLD to abolish slavery, I believe that the blacks ruling Africa now have made a total mess of it, when Ian Smith was the Prime Minister of Rhodesia there was no poverty, the government wasn't demolishing peoples houses because they didn't like them, Mugabe is the devil incarnate (most of the white Rhodesians have had to flee to avoid his regime of opression) Life for the average African has not improved in any way, they might not have had a vote or freedom in some cases, but the same is true now, most of the 'Democratic' countries in Africa are as bent as a Nine-bob note. and when the British ran Kenya people didn't blow up churches full of children..... --User:GeorgeFormby1

• Comment on the preceding. From the tone of your comments, I can belive that people call YOU a racist bigot. But get your facts right: slavery was never abolished in Britain, because it was never legal in Britain in the first palce and didn't have to be abolished. (In 1722 Lord Chief Justice Mansfield had ruled that English law did not support slavery.) The Slave Trade Act 1807 abolished trade in slaves in the Empire. Emeraude (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much that every white person who ever walked in Africa was a racist bigot - I think it's more that the tone of some of this article (and certainly of many of the untoward edits that often appear on these pages) can be extremely one-sided and in some cases downright odd and yes, if you were of that frame of mind, offensive. People change the stats periodically to 'prove' points (I'm not talking here about the disputed CIA stats but just randomly adding 5 million people somewhere)...as if facts can't speak for themselves.

Was tempted to put a couple of 'citation needed's into your comment above though and then thought better of it. There absolutely was poverty in Ian Smith's Rhodesia and people absolutely did despicable things in British Kenya. Admitted, there sure wasn't poverty then like there is now in Zimbabwe... I don't think the 'all or nothing' approach really supports the argument well, but it does do so much more civilly than many of the edits I've seen to this page. Kit Berg (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevent whether white people can or can't run the place better. If I see a neighbour's disfunctional house and decide I could do a better job and enter the house without their permission and take it over it is still wrong. If they then chuck me out using excessive force or violence it is still wrong but it is useing the same means it was enterered in the 1st place. I believe white people do have a right to live in Africa but if you write thousands of white Africans people were killed and land taken from them then surely in the beginning it should say something like " white settlers fought, killed and displaced many of the Black African people of their land". 172.200.118.54 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This article does not and should not exist to discuss weather one action or another was moral or immoral. The article should be neutral in this respect and rather relay the facts and explain the history of this topic as accurately and with as little emotion as possible. So please try to avoid emotive language when writing an article like this one.--Discott (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Question

Why is this scene painted all peachy and rosy? The article speaks of settlements, blah blah blah. Where is the mention of the devastation and oppression caused by White Africans? How about the post-colonial boundaries designed to maximize war and internal conflict? Anybody? Or are you all still too busy wallowing in your indignation, "Gasp! How DARE our slaves demand the right of self-determination? Who do they think they are anyway, the rightful people of the land?" (Insert sarcasm here)

It was the colonial powers that established Africa's borders, not the White Africans. In fact the colonial powers used & abused White Africans just as they abused Black Africans.

For Example: Concentration Camps were invented by the British to exterminate White Africans -- during the Boer War.

In both of the Rhodesias, Kenya & Tanzania the British colonial goverment financed white settlement, gave them privaledged positions in adminstration of these colonies and encorouged them to believe that power would be handed over to them. Right up until independence!

I've never understood why the colonial powers rushed. In 1955 the British Goverment declared that no african state (apart for Ghana) would achieve independence before 1970. France's policy was make their colonies overseas departments, electing MPs to Paris.

Then 1960 and a rush to independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should be renamed

This article should be removed to "European African" as "White African" could also count Arabs. Luka Jačov 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

White African not only count arabs but berbers, that is most of the population of North Africa. I agree, the article should be changed to "European African". --Bentaguayre 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You make a good argument here, however it does not resolve the issue that many people who one would consider "European African" had/have ancestors who also came from the Middle East (such as Lebanon, Armenia and Syria).--Discott (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Other ethnicities in Africa

Somewhere needs to be mention of the substantial populations of people living in Africa who are neither white nor black. Aside from the debatable example of the Lebanese (mainly traders), I am thinking of those from the Indian subcontinent, who came in some cases in the C19 as coolie labour to build the railways etc, and who most spectacularly were kicked out of Uganda by Idi Amin. A short paragraph somewhere would be welcome. BrainyBabe 13:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

NORTHERN AFRICANS ARE WHITES TOO

Please someone fix the article, anthropologists consider Arabs as whites, even if you like it or not. Recently I watched a documental on National Geograpic about the people who live in Northern Mauritania and they said that there is considered by anthropology science the border between the "black and the white world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.170.69.210 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of arabs are white and light skinned, in their countries there are some admixture but most of them are as white as spanish or italians.

In Morocco and Algeria there are even berbers who are blue eyed and blonde haired.

This article should be re-edited removing racism.

Bye byeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.83.185 (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

i agree and i believe egypt is in north africa and should be included under the accepted definition of caucasian which includes north africa and egypt is in north africa--Mikmik2953 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The way the US government defines White (having ancestry from Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa), as Well as the way that it has widely been defined by science (North Africa (which is actually technicall part of the Middle East), Middle East, Europe, and even India, would all be White, my brother in law is Egyptian by birth, and I'm not about to say he's not White, my recently deceased niece was not "Half White half Arab",considering my sister is of mixed White/American Indian ancestry, as am I, by she was still White, by virtue of a partially White mother, and a White father (although, he has admitted to some black ancestry), I'm sure most North Africans are aware what race they are. Although, in some instances, many Blacks from Northern Africa, in the United States, are sometimes defined as Whites (ALL Egyptians, for instance, are defined as being White), the same problem exists for many Indians from Latin American countries (12 % of Mexico's population is American Indian (60% Mixed White and Indian), however, since most Mexicans are not enrolled in a federally reconized tribe, so they may not be considered Indian by the census. So, to put it lightly, yes, many North Africans, and Arabs in General, are in fact, White. Iamanadam (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This really should be moved to "People of European origin in Africa". North Africans are considered "white" by most anthropologists, most governments, and most importantly in the definition of such a subjective and cultural classification as that of race: north africans self identify as white! If you deny them the white identity they self profess, you should at least mention credible sources that classify them in other races. Jewish people are also Semites, and Arabs have been proven, in several genetic studies, to be very similar ethnically to Jewish people. Anyone denying that Jewish people are not white would be with good reason strongly censured. Just because Arabs are Muslims and there appears to be a certain hostility against them due to tragic recent events does not justify such racialist, offensive and unacceptable prejudice. Just when did wikipedia become an aryan-supremacist propaganda site? 84.90.16.244 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

anyway, just to add something. An entry should be made concerning the populations in the Indian ocean islands where a large portion of the population are of white origin ( mostly french).Im talking of reunion, seychelles, chagos , mauritius and rodrigues culturaly and linguisticaly their culture is dominant. However none consider themselves as European and speak creole. most were living there since the 17th century ( most of these islands were unihabited). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.123.111 (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

North African are mixed peoples. If they are to be white, then African-Americans might as well be called white. Almost every North African has some black blood in them despite the various appearances that came from 1,000's of year of mixing. You know who is "really" white by how they are treated by Europeans! That means by these peoples going into white countries and by how whites countries support them. In Europe, North Africans are NOT viewed as white. In the US, on paper they are white (as are Brazilians!), but in society they are not treated as such. Now, you have many Lebanese peoples who look white, think of themselves as such and are by and large regarded as such. To me that is fine because they are (many) or a clear European lineage which is the case in the so-called Arab world. Never forget that Romans had the place and some places they had more people than others.

The ones who look whiteter are usually white from Europe - just trapped in anothers culture much as white Europeans did to other peoples. THIS is one of the main reasons whites like to cal North Africans white because of the fact that whites or mulattoes are under the rule of an Asian culture and speak and Asian language. They do not want it ti be seen as whites having been conquered by others - including black Africans. Not to mention, the history of N. African is so great that they want to wipe away any thought of black blood flowing into Europe. Lying about facts do not change them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.91.23 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you people want so badly to be white? Well, I think you are confusing White with Caucasian. Ecen Etihopians are Caucasian! Also, someone said that North Africans and Arabs are as wite as Spaniards and Italians... so, can you please explain me why did Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians and others called Arabs and North Africans Moors? Is it because Moors derives from the Latin, meaning black or was just because they dressed themselves black! Nice to see how superior we, whites, are! Even Morocans and Arabs want to be White! Go see the Saudi football team, the Moroccan football team and the Tunisian football team and then see the Portuguese, Spaniard, Greek and Italian team! Just don't forget of cuting off the immigrants of those football teams. Grow the fuck up! Seeing the football game between Egypt and Angola, I didn't knew who were whichh but, at least two Angolan players (of Portuguese descent) were lighter than the lightest Egypcian.

You're a liar ,I saw the 2010 Africa cup final between Egypt and Ghana, and also Egypt and Cameron ,Egypt looked pretty much a white team for me but for one or two who looked Hispanic. If you don't believe me here's the match highlights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOF1_SVfSSg.........just another thing, if we're gonna use football teams as a whitometer for people, then France will be way too black (Mandanda, Sanga, Evra, Sakho, Lassana, Diarra, Henry) btw, all were born in France,so they're not nationalized immigrants.Syrian and Jordanian Teams ere white looking too.41.232.127.73 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There really needs to be a distinction made between "Africans of European origin, i.e. European Africans" and "North African peoples such as Arabs and Berbers". The term "Caucasian" is racialist BS, Caucasians are actually people from the Caucasus (or Caucasia).Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not want to be white so badly because we are and we do not need thw witness of u that we are. Your fucki'n article is biased and we hate that. Wikipedia can not be biased.

Controversial

Since there seems to be alot of disagreement with the article, I am going to label it as controversial Iamanadam (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are all whites in Africa 'White Africans'?

While I'm on a roll, this was something that I wondered when first encountering this article. The article cites numbers of white people in various African countries with corresponding ranges - yet how many of these people are NOT in fact African to any degree? First generation settlers surely can't be 'African' any more than a black African with a green card could be 'American'? Or are these numbers so low that it makes no difference to the estimates? Any opinions on this welcome; it's something that I've been thinking about for a while but have no stats on either way. Kit Berg (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that those who identify as white are indeed white, with, at most, negligble African influences. Miscegenation with non European males were non existant untill the fifties. Men in Africa usually had black sexual slaves but also had their white Lady and only the legitimate sons would be considered as white, of course. The others would be blacks. It is just like America before the 60s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't my question. My question was more about how a white person of European descent is also identified as African - i.e. how many generations were born in Africa, citizenship (or length of) of African nations, whether it's just self-identification. In other words, where is the line between a white person living in Africa who is identified/self-identifies as African and one who is still regarded as (presumably) European. I'd guess that a few generations ago people still self-identified as European to a large degree, especially recent immigrants...so just a point for my own interest perhaps.

Not all whites in Africa today are African, I'd assume; I was interested to know if anyone knew if there were numbers corresponding to that and if it made any impact on the figures of 'white Africans'. Kit Berg (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A Black African with a green card actually does become American. Even if they're non-citizen residents I think they can at least be seen as partially African. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that most are not first generation settlers, We have been in Africa since the mid to late 1600's that is more than 300 years! If we are not considered African after living here that long then I do not know... we are looking at 10 generations +. If we exclude on these grounds no body could lay claim to any nationality. Further more this is the whole debate over the name of this page because we do not consider ourselves European, we are WHITE Africans of European Ancestry --Scottykira (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert of deleting of my edit

someone removed my edit of "reversing a process that took place hundreds of years previously.". This makes the article neutral as it acknowledges past killings and land seizures as well as current ones. Leaving it out makes the article horribly biased towards the people who colonised it in th 1st place. The whole statemnet needs to be removed or some mention of what happened before —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.93.175 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

European African?

Why was this unilaterally moved without so much as a comment on the talk page? WP:NAME says to use "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." I, personally, have never heard the term "European African," and it is very misleading since many Afrikaners, for example, are hardly European, having lived in Africa for hundreds of years. It's hard to gauge how common this term is through Google due to tons of irrelevant results, but "european african people" produces only 4 hits. The edit summary explanation "misleading, as the article presents only European white peoples in Africa" is not entirely true - Afrikaners do not consider themselves European, and Armenians are also mentioned, who are only arguably European. This move was certainly inappropriate without any discussion beforehand. If the objection is the lack of inclusion of North African Arabs, which is not unreasonable, then that is a deeper issue than simply the title of the article (they're not on the table of "white Africans" for example) and should be discussed as such rather than just moving the article outright. -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and reversed the move. Please make some attempt to gather consensus before such actions in the future. I, for one, do not support the move, unless someone comes up with evidence that "European African" is actually a commonly-used term for white in Africa, comparable to "white African." I would not, however, oppose expanding the mention of North African Arabs a little further, beyond the one sentence in the into, perhaps focusing on the difficulties in categorizing them one way or the other. -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved it because, as what I see from the talk page, most discussions fall on the exclusivity of Europeans (as the statistics table suggests). I cite the above section on "This article should be renamed" where the move was suggested. Either the article be improved to include Northern African white people and Arabs or let's put this issue of moving to European African to a vote. Jordz (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Major population locations map

What exactly makes the listed countries "major population locations?" Why is Namibia, which has the third-highest population according to the chart, omitted, yet the Ivory Coast, not even in the top ten, isn't? -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename article?

I think the article should be renamed to "European Africans" or some other title because of the broad and varying definition of the term "white". Does anyone object, or have a different title?--eskimospy (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, but you can't say eruopean because these people were born in africa and has tens of generations in africa, so they are african. The name maybe should be called 'white european ancestry africans' i know it's long , but still , its most convincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.69.85 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, if I get a few more people to agree, I'll change it to that.--eskimospy (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

European African sounds too made-up and unused, White African could be inaccurate depending on the definition of "White". A descriptive title would be best to avoid conflict and controversy, such as "Africans of European Ancestry" or "Africans of White-European Ancestry". If no one objects within the next day or so, I'm going to go ahead and change it.--eskimospy (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it, now no one has an excuse to complain about why North African countries aren't incuded in "Regions with significant populations" anymore.--eskimospy (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am European and I don´t consider those White Africans Europeans at all. They are NOT European and we don´t think about Afrikaners or anything else as Europeans. It is as stupid as calling Black Americans "Africans" when they are American (?) Completely ridiculous. I read one article in AsianWeek about some Americans who were called "Asian Pacific Islanders Americans" something as ridiculous as "European Atlantic Islanders Americans". Americans are completely RIDICULOUS. If you are American you CANNOT be European or African or Asian. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.243.144 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the article is trying to say. The title of the article is "Africans of European descent", but then it goes on to say "also known as "White Africans"". Does this mean that all Africans of European descent are considered "white"? So for example if I had a black African mother and a white African father I would be considered white? After all someone with one black African parent and one white African parent is still of European descent, are these people considered white in Africa? Can we have a source for this? Is it analogous to the "one drop rule"? Is everyone who can demonstrate European ancestry, however little, considered "white"? I'm sceptical, and if it is not the case that all Africans with an European descent are considered white, then I think either the name of the article should be changed, or it's content should be modified. Basically it's simply incorrect to clain that only white Africans have an European descent.
As for the comment

• you can't say eruopean because these people were born in africa and has tens of generations in africa
  

I don't see how this can possibly be true, if we assume that a generation is 25 years, then we are saying that these people have white ancestry in African that goes back at least 250 years (and that's a single multiple of ten, so not "tens" but just "ten"). Whereas I'm sure there are some white Africans who have European ancestry from as long ago as this (just as there must be black Africans with such European ancestry), surely the vast majority of white Africans are descended from Europeans who migrated much more recently, say in the 19th century, which would be more like four to six generations (100-150 years ago). Alun (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ps. I see it has recently been changes from "White-Africans" I strongly support changing the name back to this. Currently the article does not discuss "Africans of European descent" because this group includes many people who would not normally be considered "white". This change was counterproductive and does not seem to have been thoroughly discussed before being made. Alun (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the name change, me my family and almost all our friends in south africa have been here for over hundred of years, SO I AM AFRICAN , i live in england now , but most of my family have never even been to europe! i think the name is just confusing amd i prefer the old name , because this can dispute with the north africans , who can also be classified as white. I take offense being called european (because im not) alot of the immigration to africa is recent... NOT MOST! my ancessteres were at the Battle of Blood River (proven in writing) and thats hundreds of years ago.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The only problem i have with it being called 'white africans' is that it can dispute with the north africans, who can also be called white. And for Wobble (Alun), how dare you talk about white african generations if you've never lived in africa!

• After all someone with one black African parent and one white African parent is still of European descent

Well then they are coloured, they are coloured with european decent. Can't we call the article something along the lines of africans with european ancestry? And yes, all africans of full european decent are white. maybe we can call it 'white africans of european decent' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezuidenhout (talk • contribs) 08:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm mot sure that "coloured" means anything to people who are not from South Africa, it certainly doesn't mean anything to me, in the Uk the word "coloured" used to be used for anyone who is black, but it's not really used anymore as it's considered offensive. Besides my point was that non-white Africans of European descent are still Africans of European dewscent, and the article was not about Africans of European descent, it was about white Africans, so the title of the article was misleading. Why shouldn't I point out that few white Africans can claim tens of generations of ancestors in Africa? It's just the truth. I didn't say that people with less than "tens of generations" in Africa ware not Africans, I just said that it rarely amounts to tens of generations, most white Africans have a white African ancestry that is still a long time and these people are still Africans and I didn't dispute this. Let's make claims that are accurate and not hyperbole, I don't see anything particularly controversial or offensive about this comment. I think White Africans of European descent is a very good compromise, it's a more accurate description of the content of the article. I support this move as a compromise. On the other hand Alasdait Bonnet states in his book "White Identities" that the term "white" does not apply to non Europeans in it's usual sense, and that the larger meaning race science of white that includes non-European groups such as North Africans and people from west/central and south Asia is a marginalised conception of white. Still that's by the by, I think your suggestion is excellent Bezuidenhout. Alun (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To all the White Africans going on about how their ancestors have been in Africa for so long: saying White identifies you as being of ethnic European origin. That's what White means. Unless you're willing to accept Chinese Africans. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How about White Africans of European Ancestry, This I think meets the demands of both sides, btw in refrence to the 10 generations, most South African whites European ancestors arrived in SA 300+ years ago in the 1600's --Scottykira (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition of White

I changed the word incorrect to debatable in para 1 for two reasons. One I don't think this article is the place to state what the correct definition of white is, and secondly because if the Arabs and Berbers are white then the first sentence of the article is false. Arabs and Berbers in Africa number far more than the five to seven million persons of European descent the article claims. Qemist (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gulf Arabs in Zanzibar

what about the gulf arabs in zanzibar?! they ruled that area for a certain time. it was a part of oman till 1960's when black zanzibarian made a revolution against gulf arabs and other white people. also many traders from kuwait were living in zanzibar and mombasa in kenya. persian traders also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.215.117.216 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cape Verde

In the nation of Cape Verde the overwhelming majority of the population is a mulatto (a mixture of White European and Black African) even if the language is European (Portuguese)and the culture is mainly European.

Cape Verde can be considered, like Western Cape in South Africa, part of the West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.243.144 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese

This article states that Arabs are not considered white in this article. However, in a lot of the article--especially the "Other White African Groups" section--a lot of content about the Lebanese is included. The consensus in the above talk sections was that Arabs shouldn't be included in the article, so, shouldn't the information about them be removed?--Parthian Scribe 01:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinenimachaka

Why did User:Kinenimachaka delete all the coutnries i added in the infobox? i spend a long time finding them, can someone give me a reason on my talk page! I am very annoyed at the moment! --Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Twofingers.jpeg

The image File:Twofingers.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Christiaan Barnard.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Major reference

As i make my white african statistics journey, just incase someone asks.. i find this information at the demographics of countries (e.g. demographics of sengegal: 50,000) --Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

linguistics link

Languages: changed in-text link "European" to "Indo-European" -- "European" refers to geographic location, "Indo-European" is the correct nomenclature in linguistic classification (and includes Afrikaans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.184.105 (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Better call the article "White Europeans in Africa"

Not White Africans as millions of North Africans in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia etc are as white as Southern Europeans. Even there are thousands of descendants of Germanic tribes (Vandals) who arrived after the fall of the Roman Empire, not to talk about the thousands of descendants of Roman colinizers after the fall of Carthago when all North Africa became part of the Roman Empire.--79.147.235.220 (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the beggining of the article where we state that Arabs and Berbers of north-africa come under a serperate sections.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tricky situation

I don't know where to place the section of White South Africans by province - Currently it's located in teh Dutch/Afrikaans sections, however I have added material about both the English and Portuguese populations. Can someone please help me find a place for it.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Move

I move the article to white africans of european origin, because Afrikaners (like myself) are not berber, and not European. Many 'European born' Africans would also agree.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is better. But shouldn't it be exactly what you said (White Africans of European origin) and not the present form "White Africans of European origins" (the plural form seems wrong...)? The Ogre (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree (ill move it) --Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New title

I suggest that u change the the header title (the Address) to Europian in Africa because all what u have mentioned in the article is so far from reality. There are maney white people of sematic organ and alot of whit people in afghanstan and india that u never mentioned in the article.

--76.68.19.254 (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The titel is perfect because European Africans is incorrect because some of them have been here for over 400 years. We don't call Afro-Americans 'African' do we? Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Coloureds

Like the north african arabs can sometimes be considered 'white' so can the Coloureds of South Africa, and confusingly they are of partial European ancestry. Should be include a section in the article about them or maybe just a quick link to the article Coloured? Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

infobox-pictures

isn't there a way to put actual white africans into the infobox, rather than just people who were born there (Bateson left for Denmark, Theron is American, Shuttleworth moved to London, and Dawkins lives in Oxford)? I think Helen Zille should at least be in that box -- after all, she's the only one who actually lives in Africa... Anyone else? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we can add in Jan Smuts/Pretorius/Christiaan Barnard or many other white people in this list: Great South Africans (television series). Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe also adding White Zimbabeans (or Rhodesians), white Algerians (Pied-Noirs) or White Kenyans?? Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Barnard is a good choice for now. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

i thought "white" was a skin color !

see WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
but apparently for the author of this article "white" means having a european ancestry , he doesn't count the white north africans as whites ! the word "white" which is a color , has here been hijacked to mean "european" , which is a logical fallacy, a word means what it means , you have no right to restrict the meaning of "white" to only certain types of whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjan (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC) You're not making much sense. There's a qualifier in the title... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, the title clearly says 'of European ancestry' to distinguish them from North Africans. Otherwise the article would be 'White Africans'. Common sense Ikjan please? Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC) The reason I reverted Seb Az was the "Lebanese" bit-perhaps White but by no stretch European. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I see; I agree with that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Since when where Boers and Rhodesians indigenous to Africa. Boers are European settlers in the same boat with other European settler colonies, Massive POV bias probably from a white person. A major editing should will be done in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.89.60.40 (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC) If they want to call themselves African they can. Boers have been in South Africa for over 300 years, I think that counts as long enough to be "african". Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC) "If they want" sounds like an opinion not factual Boers et al came from Europe fact, this article is an biased opinion piece will be deleted or edited this week by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonstone (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC) So tell us, what should this article say, in your opinion? You set up a strawman argument in your first post (I'm assuming that 41.89.60.40 and Simonstone are the same person) where you used the word "indigenous". Nowhere does this article claim that white Africans are indigenous. Do you think that white Americans are not Americans because they are not indigenous to the American continent? - htonl (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC) I agree with Htonl, why don't we also start referring to "Black South Africans" as "Black middle-africans", since most black people in South Africa only came AFTER the Dutch landed in Cape Town. Do you also propose moving Black British to Black people living in Britain? Or how about White American to European American? How about Afro-American to African Ancestry American? Your argument holds no water and in South Africa people can call themselves what you want, hence why I am allowed to, on a census form, call myself Asian even though I know I am not but it is down to opinion haha. Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC) And I'm sorry but what does it mean to be African? Do we now need to have "African" DNA to be counted as African? Last time I checked Black and White people are both human? Who cares if they're from "Africa" or "Europe"?? At the end of the day no matter how much DNA testing or history lessons you have they can call themselves what they think they belong to! Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Simonstone, before you get to work, review what is considered vandalism around here; your threat to "delete or edit" reeks of it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Veiled threats aside African simply means indigenous to Africa, notice there is no White Asian, and no black European but Black people in Europe same logic follows here. White African implies they are indigenous, disingenuously. I care about facts and their deliberate and systematic distortion helps no-one. FYI the new heading will be White people in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonstone (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Except that you completely ignore that that article notes in its very first sentence the term "Afro-European"; and you also ignore the hyphenate-American precedent. Would you suggest that the term "Asian American" or "African American" implies that the respective groups are indigenous to the Americas? The problem with "White people in Africa" is that it conflates two different groups: white people who are long-established in Africa (often for many generations, as pointed out above) and who are citizens of African countries; and white people who are transitory foreign visitors. An Afrikaner is of course not a Dutchman in Africa; and even an english-speaking white South African or Kenyan is not merely an Englishman in Africa. The title "Black people in Europe" has, to my mind, similar problems, some of which are evident on that article's talk page. The thing is that "African" (as with "European") has two distinct yet related meanings: one based on geography and citizenship, and another based on ethnicity. You are asserting that the second meaning is the only vaild one, which is simply not true. - htonl (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Why argue? Simonstone: "African simply means indigenous to Africa" [citation needed] If you do not bring that citation in your next post, I will close this section per WP:FORUM. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Indeed Why argue or threaten ? African (plural Africans) A native of Africa; also one ethnologically belonging to an African race. Cite Africa is apolitical and refers to the landmass as European is to the Europe the landmass Native/Indigenous definition by the united nations Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant. Sentiment aside this explicitly excludes people of European descent Boers, Rhodesian, Pied noirs etc from the definition of African and Since the Logic applied in the Black_people_in_Europe thread is consistent, it will be applied here with a major reedit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonstone (talk • contribs) 06:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Simonstone, the article Black people in Europe is an umbrella term (almost a disambiguous article) for the overall black population of Europe. If you go into the actual articles for every European country (Afro-French, Black British) you will notice the style of title changes. This is because some of those black people are 3rd or 4th generation British/French and so can be counted as "British" or "French. In the case of this article "White people in Africa" doesn't work as some people argue that North Africans are effectively white (see earlier discussions). I don't see why you seem to find calling an Afrikaner an "African" offensive? Why does it offend you? Those 2.7 million Afrikaners are up to 10th generation Africans, have a unique language which developed in Africa and the vast majority have never even been to Europe! If you are saying that being "African" involves being "Black" then what are the South African Coloureds? Are they only half African? Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Firstly, the Oxford English Dictionary's first definition of "African" is "A native or inhabitant of Africa; a person of African origin." (my italics); and its second definition is "Applied to a white inhabitant of Africa." Secondly, the word "native", as you might have noticed from the very article you linked it to, can be used to indicate either nationality or ethnicity. (And thirdly, though it is not really relevant to my argument, the words "who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant" in the UN definition of "indigenous" would exclude most black Africans from the term. Clearly it is not a useful definition in this context) In any case, if you want to change the title of this article I strongly suggest you attempt it through the requested move process, as there is clearly no consensus for the move at the moment and a unilateral change would be improper.- htonl (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of wrong use of term White African

WP:FORUM; bring citations for what is so far only your opinion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I intend to remove the term based on the following Straight forward facts. 1.Africa is not a country so they cannot be African by virtue of citizenship. 2.This Article is explicitly about an ethnic group drawn from Europe, they cannot be African unless they are indigenous to Africa. 3.Same logic was used in the Asian people and European people pages. Clear demarcation between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples is needed to remove ambiguity. I am replacing it with the term Europeans in Africa. Only Changing the title reamins. I will also change it as I implement same changes on linked pages and ensure the link properly within the week — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonstone (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC) False. If you are a citizen of an African country, you are African. False. European Americans are not indigenous to America; White Australians are not indigenous to Australia. False. The naming of ethnic groups (and the articles on ethnic groups) is not based on some kind of systematic demarcation. It is based on the terms actually used to describe those groups. I repeat: do not try to change the article name without opening a requested move discussion, as the move is clearly controversial. - htonl (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about terms

This articles continuously confuses the terms and definitions of 'white' and 'European'. Not every white people is European, and not every European is white. Other than that the term 'white' is a social construct and means different things in different cultures. I suggest renaming the article to 'Africans of European descent'. FonsScientiae (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ghana? KENYA?!

I see the infobox has been tampered with and it's an absolute mess, it states Ghana has over 1 million and Kenya 600,000? Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Colonial People

Someone has added the category "Colonial people" to this article. Surely that can't be right? Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Spanish in Africa

What about Ceuta and Melilla?--80.30.66.182 (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be difficult to find reliable demographic information regarding ethnicity for the enclaves, found one sourcehttp://www.faqs.org/minorities/Western-Europe-and-Scandinavia/Ceuta-and-Melilla.html, looking for another to back it up though. Will edit the article to add a general statement with regards to the enclaves--Scottykira (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of Anglo-African to British in Africa

See Talk:Anglo-African#Proposed move to British in Africa. Helen (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous/African whites

I have reverted two edits by Roland Postma that were reverted by htonl yesterday (which are not minor edits as described by the editor). The first, reverted here, describes Afrikaners as the "only indigenous" white minority in Africa without any sources. The second, reverted here, repeats the "White African" wording already included in the lead sentence and is also unsourced as the wording relates to self-identification. We know white people in Africa identify as "White" from the SA census cited in many articles about SA, but we have not cited any sources for white people in Africa generally identifying as "White African". The corresponding "Black African" label used in SA articles is from the SA census form and results, which does not specify "White African" for whites. HelenOnline 06:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, in response to the claim in his edit summary that 'White(s) are African. Just "white" alienates considering Blacks are called "Black African."': Indeed. That is why the article is entitled "White Africans of European ancestry", and not "White people in Africa" or something along those lines. That is why the article uses the term "White African". But in the context of the first sentence, the "African" part is already covered by the words "residing in, or hailing from, Africa". - htonl (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor is now edit warring and has responded on my talk page. I have requested they discuss it here instead. HelenOnline 09:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Afrikaners have been in RSA for over three hundred years. If they want to call themselves white Africans at this point, they have every right to. That being said, RP: they are not an ethnic group historically indigenous to the Cape or even Africa in general. Furthermore, we don't have any detailed studies on how many African-born whites identify as "White Africans"; certainly, the high proportion of such individuals who continue to hold European passports (Belgians in Rwanda, Germans in Namibia, etc) or retain dual citizenship would seem to suggest that in some areas it is quite otherwise. --Katangais (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The article clearly does recognize that people can call themselves white Africans; for heaven's sake, the article's title is "White Africans of European ancestry". The lead, as it currently stands, essentially says that "White Africans are Africans who identify as white." Roland whould have it be "White Africans are Africans who identify as White African", which firstly is self-referential, and secondly excludes those who are within the group but wouldn't use the term "White African" for themselves. - htonl (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How condescending of Hton, so it's perfectly ok to alienate those who call themselves White African? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland Postma (talk • contribs) 12:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How can you possibly claim we are alienating those people (of whom, incidentally, I am one), when the very title of the article uses the term "White African"? However, not every person who is a white African necessarily identifies with the term "White African". The text of the article as it stood before your recent edit in no way denied that many of us do identify that way, especially seeing as, once again, the title of the article is "White Africans of European ancestry". Further, to be clear, saying that people "identify as white" does not exclude the possibility that they also identify as white African. Indeed, people who identify as white African by necessary implication also identify as white. Therefore it is redundant to say "identify as white or white African". - htonl (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Europeans in Antiquity

While certainly, much of the section about Romans and barbarians in ancient times don't have any place in this article, I say we include at least a passing reference to the Vandal-descended tribes in North Africa who still carry distinctly European traits such as blue eyes and red hair to this day (technically, they do fit the bill of the title, being in many cases "white" and certainly "of European ancestry"). The section will, of course, exist solely to clear up confusion and include a link to a more detailed page elsewhere - while emphasizing that these people should not be grouped with other European communities that were introduced during the colonial era.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources linking current Africans who identify as white to these tribes, by all means include it. Like most African topic articles, this one could use some serious cleaning up (I have tackled a few, but it is a big job and I am only one). I don't want to see more unsourced content added to it. HelenOnline 12:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Separate Afrikaners & Dutch

Whom, what, or it, has the legitimacy to throw in Afrikaners in the Dutch basket? This is very confusing and misleading, both are separate ethnicities, one hailing from Europe and the other from Africa. I should not have to cite why Afrikaners are distinct from the Dutch, Germans, Khoisan ecterta. This ambiguity that is subtle and misleading must stop. I therefore want to propose a separate section for those who are Dutch, and for those who are part of the Afrikaner ilk, including the sub group Boer. State if you support this notion or disapprove of this notion. The obliviousness of some editors is mind boggling. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disapprove: If Afrikaners were taken out, the Dutch section would be completely empty. Need I remind you that two-thirds of the white Boer/Afrikaans parent stock was Dutch? They are undeniably an African people of Netherlands Dutch ancestry, while their language and Christian faith are developed from those of Holland. Hendrik, would you deny this? --Katangais (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So supposedly it is conventional to throw all European ethnicities into this section? There are no Dutch, German (exclusively to South West Africa because it was a former German colony) nor French sufficient population numbers present in Southern Africa. The whole notion around Afrikaners (or sub group Boer) is to distinguish themselves from their European ancestry. Furthermore, I’m simply proposing to call it Afrikaners and deleting the Dutch headline, as there are no living group or person in Southern African from 1707 onwards citing themselves as Dutch. I accede to the ancestry of this African ethnicity, but that is irrelevant to the head title and therefore can only be added in relation to coherently assert where the Afrikaner hails from. Which, I therefore take back this silly notion of separating Dutch and Afrikaner, but deleting the Dutch headline and only including the phrase Dutch and the relevancy of the Afrikaner ancestry in the paragraph below. State if you support this *new notion or disapprove of this new notion. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support simply calling the section "Afrikaners", this corresponds with other more detailed African articles such as "Afrikaner" and "British diaspora in Africa". Throwing in "and Dutch" is confusing. There are people here who describe themselves as "Dutch" (I know several), but their families have immigrated relatively recently (and they are not who the section is about). Roland/Hendrik, Wikipedia does not claim to be perfect, it is a work-in-progress and many people here want to help improve it. Try to assume good faith (not always easy, I know) and help us improve it together. HelenOnline 07:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dissaprove - Yes they are indeed "Africans" but they are still of European ancestry. It is the same reason we have African Americans or Indian/Asian South Africans. The layout of this article is to correspond to the waves of Immigration by the various European powers and then have an almost "timeline" structure. There is no doubt that Dutch (and thereafter Afrikaner) history began when Van Riebeeck landed at present day Cape Town. Of course each corresponding European section relates to the, for example, German and French assimilation into Afrikaner genetics. By putting a heading "The Dutch/Afrikaners in Africa", the article is not saying "AFRIKAANS PEOPLE ARE DUTCH DON'T BE FOOLED", all we're saying is that their history began with a Dutch settlement. I still think it should have some sort of Dutch connection to the subtitle as this article is (unfortunately) very historical in terms of former white populations and separating these "short" stories of white populations in Angola or Zambia seems appropriate. There is already an article on White South Africans and Afrikaners. I don't see any "Dutch African" or "German people in South Africa" articles. Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Disapprove - I do think the "Dutch" subtitle may be necessary, for clarification, per the fact - as already covered in greater detail above - that Afrikaner history began with Van Riebeeck's settlement at the Cape, and with regards to the fact that besides the unique Boer subgroup there are also the so-called "Cape Dutch" who were actually the larger of the two communities for several decades. Furthermore, Hendrik's assertion that no white Afrikaans person in Southern Africa has identified as Dutch since 1707 is false. As late as the Second Boer War there were Boers in the Natal legally identifying as part of "the Dutch nation", the contextual assumption being that they were referring to their trekker republics rather than Holland. The Orange Free State in particular retained exceptionally close ties to the Crown of the Netherlands. --24.106.169.166 (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

1707 is merely a symbolic year initiated by Hendrik Biebouw proclaiming he's not European but African. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What about the Spanish territories in Africa?

I think the infobox at the right of this article needs to add the Spanish population that lives in Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla. There are 2 million whites here. Spain has the second greatest white population in Africa, after South Africa with its 4.5 million whites. 12qwas (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The majority once lived along the Mediterranean coast, South Africa, or in Zimbabwe

Why is this sentence some sort of sacred cow? The fact is that it is misleading because, while large white populations did live (and in South Africa's case, do live) in those areas, it ignores the fact that large white populations lived in the Portuguese territories of Angola and Mozambique and Namibia. It would be much more accurate to say "The majority once lived along the Mediterranean coast or in Southern Africa". What is the point of excluding and ignoring the former Portuguese territories and Namibia? 1982vdven (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Because that's precisely what the source says. The exact wording is "in the Mediterranean states, in South Africa, and in Zimbabwe". --Katangais (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll find a better, more accurate source, then. 1982vdven (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ghana

I have reverted a recent edit about new figures for European in Ghana because:

• the link you gave does give a figure of 15.8% of all foreigners being of European ancestry but I fail to see the actual total number of foreigners from which you can claim the 15.8% of.
• This is one source and is is a huge difference to any previous sources for the white population in Ghana. Maybe another source would be helpful? 20,000 - 330,000 just looks silly.
• Without sounding rude, I seriously doubt there are more than 50,000 Europeans living in Ghana.

Bezuidenhout (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if that figure were accurate, the overwhelming majority of whites in Ghana are simply European contract workers. They don't really belong in an article about African peoples. --Katangais (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Project

I was wondering how accurate the Joshua project is as a source as some of the statistics it provides seem slightly implausible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.238.42 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

“1,050, 0.006% of the city's population”

So Dar Es Salaam had 17.5 million inhabitants? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Impossible, and should be removed. There isn't a settlement anywhere in Tanzania with over 5 million inhabitants. --Katangais (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My revert

I reverted several edits for the following reasons:

1. "Europeans in Africa" is not synonymous with "white Africans".
2. White Africans do not generally identify as European these days. I am one so I also know what I am talking about. The main source for such identification in South Africa is the national census and it does not use the term "European".
3. There is a separate article for Coloureds, the edit seemed to confuse the two.
4. There is no article for British Africans, only British diaspora in Africa. HelenOnline 11:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

BLACK EUROPEANS OF AFRICAN ANCESTRY

Where is this article and if there is none, when will there will be one? This question is posed to the 90% White male full time editors of European Descent whom are completely unbiased and always fair.Mansu Musa (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

African immigration to Europe. Also as a Jew, I object to Jews being included in this article. Jews are of Semitic descent, not European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.87.65 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the relevant page to discuss whether such an article is warranted, but one reason it has not been written is that the African migration to Europe is more recent than the European to Africa, which dates back centuries, so it is more logical to include Blacks in Europe under an immigration article. Still, I think you should try to write Black Europeans/African Europeans. Good luck! --Batmacumba (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

White or European

The article is ostensibly on White Africans, yet it refers instead to European Africans. The introduction suggests that White Africans are those who regard themselves as white, but then arbitrarily limits the definition to those from Europe. Many others regard themselves as white, most notably Arabs and Moslem Africans generally.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hence the title "White Africans of European ancestry". The Pied-Noir, for instance, considered themselves a very distinct class from the local Moslems in Algeria. They fall under this category where the majority of Algerians do not.

How "European" African-born whites define themselves as varies greatly from country to country. Certainly, in Southern Africa (RSA, Namibia, Zim) there is a much stronger emphasis on being "African", while the distinction is blurred elsewhere. A number of Francophone African countries, including the Ivory Coast, have had local white communities that identified only as French, for instance, and have taken French passports since birth despite being born in Africa. --Katangais (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Royalcourtier and Katangais: White Africans still redirects to White Africans of European ancestry instead of Arab Africans. Should this redirect page be a disambiguation page instead? Jarble (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be too artificial. As a racial description white means "of European descent" in English, so it is a logical redirect. Very few Anglophones would think of Arabs/North Africans as white.--Batmacumba (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on White Africans of European ancestry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120121075711/http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=64734 to http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=64734
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090323131259/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Zimbabwe/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Zimbabwe/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223062704/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Ethiopia to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Ethiopia/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on White Africans of European ancestry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.zimstat.co.zw/dmdocuments/Census/CensusResults2012/National_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131121153548/http://www.knbs.or.ke/censusethnic.php to http://www.knbs.or.ke/censusethnic.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140814174319/http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=19013 to http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=19013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210203244/http://www.migranti.torino.it/Documenti%20%20PDF/italianial%20ster05.pdf to http://www.migranti.torino.it/Documenti%20%20PDF/italianial%20ster05.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080617143033/http://web.ana-mpa.gr:80/afieromata/omogeneia/africa/part_a.html to http://web.ana-mpa.gr/afieromata/omogeneia/africa/part_a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090705060201/http://www.demokritos.gr:80/deltia_det.asp?deltio_id=116 to http://www.demokritos.gr/deltia_det.asp?deltio_id=116
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080507204135/http://www2.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/South+Africa/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/South+Africa/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090323014419/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Zambia/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Zambia/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090323010943/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Democratic+Republic+of+Congo/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Democratic+Republic+of+Congo/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090323011214/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Kenya/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Kenya/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090323131249/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Nigeria/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Nigeria/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090323011219/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Sudan/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Sudan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090323131244/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Malawi/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Malawi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917002422/http://www.refugeesinternational.org:80/section/publications/stateless_africa/ to http://www.refugeesinternational.org/section/publications/stateless_africa/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White Africans of European ancestry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090729044913/http://web.ana-mpa.gr:80/afieromata/omogeneia/africa/part_a.html to http://web.ana-mpa.gr/afieromata/omogeneia/africa/part_a.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on White Africans of European ancestry. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.knbs.or.ke/censusethnic.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130524092801/http://www.argief.litnet.co.za/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=1270&news_id=113805 to http://www.argief.litnet.co.za/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=1270&news_id=113805
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.migranti.torino.it/Documenti%20%20PDF/italianial%20ster05.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.ana-mpa.gr/afieromata/omogeneia/africa/part_a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705060201/http://www.demokritos.gr/deltia_det.asp?deltio_id=116 to http://www.demokritos.gr/deltia_det.asp?deltio_id=116
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/South+Africa/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Zimbabwe/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100106202958/http://www.greekorthodox-zimbabwe.org:80/zimbabwe.htm to http://www.greekorthodox-zimbabwe.org/zimbabwe.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Zambia/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Ethiopia/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Democratic+Republic+of+Congo/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Kenya/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Nigeria/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Sudan/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Bilateral+Relation/Malawi/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120829134702/http://humanities.sas.upenn.edu/06-07/uhf_fellows.shtml to http://humanities.sas.upenn.edu/06-07/uhf_fellows.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.refugeesinternational.org/section/publications/stateless_africa/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090205102618/http://internationaleducationmedia.com:80/morocco/ to http://www.internationaleducationmedia.com/morocco/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)