The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move, and the rationale for moving has not been spelled out clearly enough to other participants in the discussion — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 06:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

African independence movements → Independence movements in Africa – the present title would exclude Arab movements (eg Egypt, Tunisia etc). Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  Iffy★ Chat -- 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - I don't understand the rationale for this change - I'd have thought either the present title or that proposed would include any movement on the continent, including in northern Africa...  —  Amakuru ( talk) 14:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Countries like Egypt and Tunisia are African so there's nothing wrong with the current title. A bigger problem is the complete lack of sourcing for this article. PC78 ( talk) 20:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - @ Amakuru: the point of the proposed move is to unambiguously name the article in geographic terms, rather than at present where the meaning can convey a mixture of political, national, cultural and geographic concepts. @ PC78: Tunisians and Egyptians do not refer to themselves as Africans, but rather as Arabs (eg Egypt is an Arab country in the African continent). Another way to look at the problem of the current name of the article is to think about forms of Pan-Arabism, eg Ba'athism, which were never movements that included the sub-Saharan countries. Looking at Panafricanism, Algeria was really the only Arab country in Africa to take a strong interest in Panafrican movements. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 14:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support then. I see where you're coming from and I suppose the proposed title is perhaps worded better. But I still don't think there is a great need for change, the curent title does not imply pan-Africanism and Egypt and Tunisia are both members of the African Union, for example. PC78 ( talk) 17:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • "Looking at Panafricanism, Algeria was really the only Arab country in Africa to take a strong interest in Panafrican movements." I don't think that's necessarily true; you might want to look at Muammar Gaddafi#Pan-Africanism, reconciliation and privatization: 1999–2011. - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Indy beetle:Hi, see my clarification below - personally, I don't treat Gaddafi's "Panafricanism" very seriously, nor can it be compared with the principled actions of the FLN in the 1960s and 1970s. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 09:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The article is certainly incomplete. But the rationale is very poor. It is perfectly possible to be both Arab and African. Egypt, Tunisia, etc. are signatories to Pan-African treaties and members of African organizations like the OAU, CAF, etc., and conversely Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Sudan, etc. are members of the Arab League, etc. Heck, Tunisia is the original source of the term "Africa/Ifriqiya". I see no reason to pander to some meaningless street prejudices. Walrasiad ( talk) 06:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment@ Walrasiad: "meaningless street prejudices" ... to what precisely are you referring? Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Post-independence Algeria is really the only Arab country which has had an historic, consistent commitment to Africa as a political entity (although less so from 1992). Membership in regional bodies always throws up contradictions... Mozambique in the Commonwealth, hello? Precisely because "African" (as an adjective) has multiple connotations is the reason to specify this as about movements *in* Africa. Further to my points above - with the current title, for example, including POLISARIO is complicated since the term "African" conveys political, social and geographic notions, under the proposed title including POLISARIO is completely unambiguous, since Africa as a noun is purely a geographic notion. Similarly, including Ba'athism and Panarabism is complicated under the current title, under the proposed title they could be included.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 08:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. "African" is being used here as a simple demonym for the continent. It is not, as you are subtly trying to insinuate, a synonym for "Negro". That may be so in the streets of old Johannesburg or Cairo, but not in Wikipedia. "African" here means simply "from Africa". And North Africa is part of Africa. I've worked for African newspapers, and North Africa was part of our beat. If you want to exclude North Africa, there is the term "Sub-Saharan Africa". As to your assertion "only Algeria..", I guess you never met the King of Africa? Walrasiad ( talk) 16:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Again, I reiterate, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I perfectly understand the intention of the current title - as would most people versed in the history of decolonisation in Africa in the 20th Century. But the readership of Wikipedia is not that, it is very diverse and precision in titles is a worthwhile endeavour. I'm not inclined to suggest breaking the article along the lines of the Sub-Saharan countries, since the colonial and decolonial processes were continental in scale. Nevertheless, the term "African" has political connotations - as your (intentionally?) comic example demonstrates - but that is precisely the point in suggesting the removal of ambiguity from the title. As for my assertion on Algeria, I qualified my statement: an historic, consistent commitment to Africa as a political entity.... consistency, other than supporting military attacks on other states in Africa, is something for which your example was rarely ever noted.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

What do you imagine the "political connotations" of the term "African" are? I'd like to know. Walrasiad ( talk) 00:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

A small reading list for you: Walter Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa", Eric Wolf's "Europe and the People Without History", Reiland Rabaka's "Africana Critical Theory", Franz Fanon's "Pour la Revolution Africaine" and Ifeoma Okoye’s "The Fourth World". Enjoy. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I've already read three out of that list. But you still haven't answered my question. Walrasiad ( talk) 13:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hope you enjoy the other two. At this point, I'll simply note my proposal is in line with WP:NCCST and WP:CATNAME.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 13:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

To be frank, I'd rather hear your answer. Walrasiad ( talk) 16:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I gave you my answer. If you wish to continue, I suggest focussing your comments on the guidelines I cited above.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 20:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

OK. I guess if you don't take your proposal seriously, I shouldn't take your proposal seriously either. Walrasiad ( talk) 22:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to achieve; your interventions here seem far more focussed on impugning my intentions. If you are familiar with some of the works I cited above then you would know that *Africa* has multiple, ambiguous meanings (as does Europe, Asia etc) rooted in the pre-histories of colonialism, colonialism itself and beyond. It is hardly a contentious idea to state that use of the term Africa (or any regional/continental grouping) is loaded with political and historical connotations which echo the experiences I've mentioned. You seem an intelligent editor, do I really need to refer you to the work of Valentin-Yves Mudimbe? I've made a simple proposal to limit the ambiguity of the current title and in line with Wikipedia naming guidelines, please WP:UCS.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 09:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't see any ambiguity in the title. It is pretty straightforward. I know some ethnic supremacists try to narrow "Africans" to "Negroes" but I don't see why that should be pandered to. Otherwise, your reasoning is obscure. You have relied on *nudge nudge hint hint* or just listing books. Come out and speak clearly. I was raised in Africa, studied African history and politics, worked in African institutions and press, and I (and everyone I know) have always considered Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, etc. to be Africans. So I don't share whatever secret reasoning you have and seem to assume everyone else has too. Evidently you know something I don't. So I am genuinely curious what that is. I can't guess your thoughts. You are going to have to articulate them. Walrasiad ( talk) 14:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Appeals to anecdotal experience are irrelevant. You seem unwilling to address texts, with which you claim familiarity, which discuss the ways in which *Africa* emerged as an historically and socially constructed entity (no less than any other regional entity in the world). I would have equal difficulty with an article entitled Asian independence movements. I think there are examples which the current title excludes - it seems simply strange to term Ba'athism or Panarabism as African movements, but one has no difficulty in indicating that these are movements, emerging from anticolonial struggles, which partly occurred *in* Africa. You (and I) may well consider Morocco to be an African country - but "street prejudice" is not the sole source of opposition to that notion (eg Morocco's withdrawal from the OAU over Western Sahara). Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs, we do a service by removing ambiguity and being precise, as much as we can. You also seem unwilling to address Wikipedia's naming guidelines - I assume because they validate my proposal. I've referred to texts, provided examples and highlighted the naming guidelines, you continue to impugn my intentions. If you wish to continue, please focus on content.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I am not here to address texts. I am here to determine a simple title. I don't see your argument, and you seem very reluctant to state it. So far, I smell only ethnic prejudice, and am not particularly inclined to indulge it. If you have a nobler argument for excluding North Africans as "Africans", I would very much like to hear it. But you have been very elusive and far from explicit. It seems like you have your own secret definitions, and seem to think everyone else agrees with it, so you don't need to articulate it. Speak up man. What are these mysterious "political connotations"? What do you imagine an "African" is? Why does your secret definition exclude my Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Libyan, etc. brothers? If I have been misusing the term "African" for the past half-century, then I'd like to know. Walrasiad ( talk) 23:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support - I honestly don't think the current title necessarily excludes North African movements, but I do like the new formulation a little better. - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - thank you Goldsztajn for the talk page message inviting me back to look at this again. But I don't really see anything in the discussion above to make me change my mind about opposing this move request. The assertion that "African" refers to something other than its standard meaning as the adjectival form of the Africa isn't supported by evidence. I've also done what I probably should have done previously, and had a look at usage in books and it turns out from this ngram that the present name has enjoyed a significant lead over the proposed name in usage for several decades, and thus qualifies also under the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Thanks  —  Amakuru ( talk) 22:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you Amakuru for responding. It's a good idea to look at the issue this way. I think this version is a little more helpful to examine the times more closely. What stands out is that the really big spikes in usage for either term starts from the latter 1950s onwards. However, Tunisia (1956), Morocco (1956), Libya (1951), Egypt (1952)- are all independent before the spike (the 1956 level of usage is the same as 1941). Algeria is the only North African country whose independence aligns with the spike. The spike reflects what Walrasiad has termed the "mindless street prejudice" of usage of that time - ie that the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa are "African" and that the countries of North Africa are not. It reinforces my point that the least ambiguous way to title the article would be using "in Africa" and fits with naming conventions per WP:CRITERIA.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.