merge[edit]

4shizzal (talk · contribs), who doesn't appear to be very keen on using talkpages, keeps recreating this article. I have placed the merge tag, and a ((synthesis)) ambox, because no source discussing "African empires" is shown, as I have already argued here (without eliciting a reply). This article is a composition based on various sources discussing various kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Dbachmann (talk · contribs) doesn't understand the difference between an Empire and a Kingdom. Empires don't belong on a page with pre-colonial kingdoms. That's why I took the liberty of separating them rather than having you screw up the empires page. I'm not saying your subject matter isn't important or well-researched (tho you do insist on calling the Mali Empire a kingdom for some reason). I was hoping separating the two articles would allow you the freedom you needed. What you are doing now borders on harassment of an article. You apparently wanted a brand new article so I gave it to you. Now chill. These pages do not need to be merged. OPPOSEScott Free (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives a reasonable clear definition and organizes its list consistent with that definition- that is, empires being multi-etnhic conglomerations. I don't think there is a need for any merger because the list holds its consistency. However, perhaps the title should be changed to "Empires of Africa (multi-ethnic)" which gives sharper focus immediately. I have no strong feeling on a name change or retention either way though.Adrunkman (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was in terms of WP:SYN entirely. I understand the difference between kingdom and empire, doh. Your specific criteria are still pulled out of thin air, the grouping by continent is completely without precedent in WP:RS and the vast majority of the details given in the list is completely unreferenced. It does appear, then, that it is you who fails to understand the gist of our WP:SYN and WP:CITE policies. You should either deliver encyclopedicity or desist from complaining if your material is trimmed or removed. dab (𒁳) 15:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMPIRE?[edit]

There seems to be some debate (Really it's just like one person, but anywhoo) about whether these states should be called empires. I decided to make this page cuz of the info I got on the Empire article here on wiki. This page is meant to be a list. If you wanna know about the particular empire, just click on the frickin name. I didn't think I needed source each name on the list cuz the pages prove for themselves that they were empires. But to appease (God I hate that word) certain individuals I will make an effort to put by a source by each name. It is a pretty stupid idea cuz any state can be CALLED an empire in a book. That doesn't make it so. The idea of African Empires isn't something I pulled out of my butt tho and it's not just in the realm of spooky Afrocentrist (GASP!). Certain white folks love to jump to that conclusion. But just to prove them, ok him, wrong...I'm not using any "Afrocentric" sources. Old british guys were calling these states empires well before the 1960s so what's the problem?Scott Free (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion, per wikipedia policy that the topic should reflect whatever sources corroborate its justification. An "empire" by its strictest definition, is a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state..

Such was clearly defined by the source citations, as are the peoples and dominions which the empires included, are clearly stated with accompanied source citations [have you read them, dab?]. Any objection to the sources and to the merriam webster definition of an "empire", with out conflicting criteria or accounts, can easily be seen as original research and/or POV, which isn't allowed per wikipedia policy. Such should be disputed until discussion can establish a consensus which warrants such a change, though if the problem persists with out said discussion, constant reverts only add to the chaos [as I've learned in the past] and the first step would be to ask for a third opinion, and if that doesn't work, report the disruptive user in a "request for comment on user"..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users

Or report abuse on the boards.. One should be sure to point out the fact that the user isn't willing to abide by a consensus [assuming one is reached], which is a blatant sign of disruption. I will review this more and if such is warranted, I will be sure to recommend any warranted action and contribute my own input and observations. I also OPPOSE btw, per the webster definition of what qualifies an empire and that I have no basis to dispute the source citations already given..Taharqa (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just having the same discussion at the article formerly at Christian cult (now at Christian-oriented cults). It's because people don't read guidelines even if they are shoved under their nose. Taking two (referenced) definitinons, such as "Christian" and "cult", or "Africa" and "empire", to build an article on the combination of these definitions is textbook WP:SYN. If nobody in the wide world (of academic literature) bothered to combine the two terms before, chances are that we don't need an encyclopedia article on the compound. Do I make myself clear? We have an article on imperial cult, not because we can independently provide definitions for "empire" and for "cult", but because we actually have references discussing "imperial cults" directly. --dab (𒁳) 14:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably being a bit stupid even discussing this with you. But I want to convince you I'm not pulling the concept of African Empires out of thin air. This is not a personal attack. I'm just gonna list the books with websites to the books so you can see what I'm talking about. Maybe we've gone about this all wrong...a kinda failure to communicate.

...more to followScott Free (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this article is supposed to deal with Afrocentric notions of "empire" rather than with actual history? You seem to be, seeing that you keep citing Afrocentric literature. This would mean we re-dedicate this article to "notions of 'Empire' in Pan-Africanism" or similar. If this has been intended as being about Afrocentrism from the beginning, you are rather late in letting everyone know. Or are you just naively searching for "African empires" on google books without even realising what kind of literature google books spews back at you? Please. Don't heap up google results, give me one serious academic source instead. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not meant to be Afrocentric. The sources are not Afrocentric. I used googlebooks for our mutual convenience so you could see the sources for yourself. But it is obvious you already have your mind made up. You only call it Afrocentric cuz you don't agree with it. All the info I provided deals with actual history. Are you stupid? I will no longer try to convince you. Get a life.Scott Free (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redefining[edit]

I gotta thank Dab for making me take a closer look at this page. He was wrong on just about everything he said regarding whether or not the page should exist or not, but I did discover something important. Wikipedia screws the lay reader from time to time. I took the definition on wikipedia's Empire article for granted without looking for sources. That was a big mistake. An empire is not defined by being multi-ethnic. An empire, according to Webster's and the Americna Heritage dictionary is

"A political unit, often made up of a number of territories or nations, ruled by a single supreme authority"

That's simple enough for me. I respect Webster's dictionary as I'm sure most of you do. That being said, I'm relisting the page according to that criteria. I doubt that will change the list a whole bunch, but at least it will be beyond reproach. Thanks Dab :) Scott Free (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I am glad you are starting to listen to what I am saying. You still need to understand WP:SYN. You cannot just take two terms, such as empire and Africa and combine them to make a new article topic. You need to WP:CITE a source that discusses "African empires" as a topic. Your "big mistake" is that you are trying to produce your own definition of what is an "Afrian empire". If you cannot provide a source for such a definition, chances are that we shouldn't have such an article. I tried to do your job for you (you are welcome). I couldn't find such a source, but I could find one discussing pre-colonial African kingdoms, hence I moved the article rather than putting it on AfD. Perhaps you just want to make this a mere list articles? Our WP:SYN standards are less demanding for these, although a list of African empires should probably still just be merged into the list of empires. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you really can't do is rely on dictionaries for something like this.

You need an approach from a political science perspective, eg:[1] Empire By Alejandro Colás: The working definition of empire developed thus far suggests that it is an expansive polity which, with the assistance ot military, economic and cultural instruments of order, dominates and exploits a subordinated population from a metropolitan centre. The immediate problem with such a definition is that polities* other than empires share some of these characteristics. A further stumbling block is that the common denominators of empire identified earlier - expansion, hierarchy and order - have often combined in very different ways in diverse imperial experiences. This latter concern is rhe subject of the rest of the book, so in this closing section of the introduction I concentrate on the former issue surrounding the distinctiveness of empires vis a vis other forms of rule and, in doing so, also canvass some contending notions of empire. The first thing to note about empires is that they are also states - that is. enduring political communities where a ruling class possesses the administrative capacity to extract and redistribute wealth, as well as the means of violence to impose such forms of authority.'" This is \t first sight obvious enough, but it has important implications for the distinction between empires and other polities - most obviously the territorially exclusive, sovereign, national state (I henceforth use these terms interchangeably). A useful starting-point in this endeavour is to consider the respective organizations of political space in these two forms of rule. As will be discussed at greater length in the following chapter, empires - both ancient and modern - have been unwilling or unable to close their frontiers. They have claimed to be, and often succeeded in being, literally boundless. Most empires, certainly the two ancient ones surveyed earlier, have plainly delimited their internal administration in all kinds of ways. They have furthermore developed sophisticated conceptions of 'inside' and outside' or 'civilized* and 'barbarian*, and enforced these external boundaries through law, war, custom and culture often in response to metropolitan anxieties over the corrupting effects of unchecked expansion on domestic political life. But such imperial boundaries have rarely been permanently fixed and exclusive. An expansive polity such as an empire is almost by definition constantly seeking to extend the reach of its frontiers and absorb fresh populations into its ecumenical order. To use a distinction common in political geogra phy, empires have frontiers and boundaries, but no external borders/ National states on the order hand arr built on territorially exclusive borders. A sovereign state may have internal boundaries - ethnic, religious or even national - but its very existence is threatened by an open or shifting frontier - that is, by the absence of a fixed and exclusive demarcation between its own territory and that of neighbouring states. This is why empires tend to be multinational entities which, at their height, thrive on this centripetal diversity, while national states always seek to unify their populations under the banner of a single, standardized and often homogenizing cultural or constitutional identitv."
This would rule out most of the list I suspect. Doug Weller (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I am not even commenting on whether the definition of "empire" used is correct. Even if it was, my criticism would stand. No source treating "African empires" as a topic is cited. This won't go away even if we are being scrupulously correct about the definition of "empire". The only way forward I can see is redefine the article's scope to "West African empires" and merge it with Sahelian kingdoms . --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empires?[edit]

Kaabu seems to have been a kingdom, so how does it get listed as an empire? What authoritative source calls it an empire? The same goes for others in the list. Doug Weller (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're empires, but I'm not sure all of them qualify as civilisations though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging?[edit]

This page is not necessary since already exists a very similar one, which btw is more detailed: Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa.--84.222.239.159 (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course it should. As you can see further up on this page, there was ideological resistance to the merger, but beyond blanking the merge tag, no effort has been made to address the issues with this article. It has been a full year now, and the merger is overdue, as I do not think that waiting for another couple of years for this article to magically improve is going to be a very promising approach. --dab (𒁳) 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nubian Empire[edit]

i opt for the removal of the Nubian Empire as an empire. I took a look at the source and it does not back up those dates nor mention an empire. plus it's just another wiki page. I say we discuss it tho b4 removing it. What say ye all? Besides, the Nubian empire is really just a geographic name for the Kushite kingdom. The thing is, the kushite kingdom was only an empire for the times I included. Scott Free (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Free, your attempt of compiling a list of empires based on a dictionary definition you found, and grouping these empires by the continent where you place their "capital cities" is a very classical case of WP:SYNTH. This list is your original work, and you need to publish somewhere else. This has been explained to you back in 2008. Unless you can present evidence that "African empire" is a phrase used in a meaningful way in some branch of scholarship, and then make this article about that notion, in that specified branch of scholarship, this page should just be merged. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to say that until I found Dab's post. We can't start deciding what entities we think meet a certain definition, we need to find reliable sources saying, in this case, that an entity was an empire, and that 'African Empire' is a phrase used in scholarly works. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms and Empires[edit]

Objections to this article have centered on whether or not 'African Empires' are a subject of scholarly research (which is silly) or whether or not the actual phrase 'African Empires' is used by scholars. The book 'Cultural Atlas of Africa' edited by Dr J Murray includes contributions by 37 scholars. The book contains a section entitled 'Kingdoms and Empires'. The description of this section, written in the book's introduction states, "The contributors to Part Two show both the unity and diversity of selected aspects of Africa: its ancient kingdoms and empires, its arts and architecture, the diaspora of its peoples, the urbanization of its countries." The use of the specific phrase "Africa: its ancient kingdoms and empires" demonstrates a clear statement, not only that there is a subject 'African Empires' but also, that African Empires are viewed as a different, but complementary subject to 'African Kingdoms'. In accordance with the the Wiki policy on sources, use of this Atlas counts as a legitimate tertiary source "used to give overviews or summaries". Also of relevance is the chapter heading 'The Rise of African Empires' in the 'African glory: the story of vanished Negro civilizations' by Prof. John Coleman De Graft-Johnson. Another useful source for this as an academic subject is the book 'Writing African History edited by John Edward Philips' in which Dr. Isaac Olawale Albert discusses historical writing about 'African states, kingdoms and empires', before going on to state 'there were many of these empires'. Of course, there are also entire books on the subject, such as 'African empires and civilizations: ancient and medieval by George O Cox, first published in 1974, with a second edition in 1992. There's the school history book, 'Black African empires' By Joan Joseph; the short survey, 'African empires and civilization' By Raymond Michelet; 'Africa, its empires, nations, and people: a reader for young adults' By Mary Penick Motley. There are several books about 'West African' empires, too. Perhaps the most eminent scholar to use the phrase was W.E.B. DuBois in 'The gift of Black folk: the Negroes in the making of America' in which he talks of 'vast forgotten African Empires'. Cheikh Anta Diop referred to 'neo-Sudanese empires' but a more recent use of the term 'African 'empires' was used by Kermit E. Campbell‌ in his paper 'Rhetoric from the Ruins of African Antiquity'. The phrase 'African empires' also appears in the paper 'Back Then and Right Now in the History of Psychology: a History of Human Psychology in African Perspectives for the New Millennium' by Oshodi, J.E in the Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol 15, No 1, January 2005. Ackees (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many books about the general history of Africa that use the word 'empires' with reference to various indigenous states. When an author about a general history of Africa uses the word 'empires' in this sense, it would be facetious to suggest that, for the purposes of this article, the author must always preface 'empires' with the word 'African'. If the book is a general history of Africa, and the term 'empires' is used to refer to indigenous states, it is not OR to understand that the meaning is 'African empires'. It must be de facto the case, as the book is already about Africa and things African! This is the case in, for example, 'African history' By Philip D. Curtin' in which he refers to 'states or empires' on page 81. A similar use occurs on page 19 of 'African history: a very short introduction' By John Parker, Richard Rathbone. The same can also be said of Encyclopedia of African history, Volume 1, ed Kevin Shillington. When, on page 560, the contributor Christian Jennings writes ' The environmental history of pre-colonial Africa is not merely the result of the impact from large-scale kingdoms and empires', it is not necessary for the scholar to preface 'empires' with 'African' - because 'African' already occurs in the sentence. Basil Davidson's 'Guide to African History' with its multiple references to 'empires' must also be read in the same way. Indeed, Davidson's 1995 work 'Africa in History' contains 96 separate references to indigenous African empires. These uses span the entire continent from Zululand, to Asante, from Mali to Kemet and from Sokoto to Aksum. Not once does Davidson use the exact phrase 'African empire'. This is because to carry on using the term 'African' as the preface to every polity would be idiotic. According to such a policy, every time he said 'king' he'd have to say 'African king', and every time he said 'town' he'd have to say 'African town'. Davidson refrained from putting the word 'African' next to every mention of an African empire, because he assumed (perhaps naively) that his readers would understand that this is a given in a book about African states. Ackees (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


So, having added numerous scholarly references to the phrase 'African empires' and uses of the term 'empire' with regard to indigenous African states, it now seems unnecessary to include a definition of the word 'empire' in the body of the text. The existence of such empires is not a matter of controversy, it is an established perspective by many scholars. The word 'empire' has a fairly well understood meaning in history/politics/economics - if people don't know what it means, they will now have to click on the ref. Ackees (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Ackees (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps you reconsider the objections raised. Nobody said that "African empires" was impossible as a phrase. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't do "phrases", we do "topics". Please. Nobody disputes that there were various empires in Africa. The question is on what grounds are they subsumed under a single topic any more than the various Eurasian empires of history can meaningfully be subsumed under a single topic. This page can at best be a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Free State[edit]

I hope that there will be no objections to the addition of the Orange Free State and South African Republic to the list of African empires. I think that constitutionally they are very similar to Liberia. All were founded by an immigrant population at almost exactly the same time, on a republican model. However, as with Liberia (and, most empires) the two Boer states privileged the 'metropolitan' population over the 'colonized' population. All were aggressively expansionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I do not know much about the history of Liberia (though I am skeptical), but I definitely have never heard anybody refer to either the OFS OR ZAR as "empires". They simply do not seem to meet the criteria set out in the lede of the article. If you can bring me a reliable source that would refer to either or both of these entities as "empires", you can include them Seb az86556 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from lede: For the purpose of this article, only African states that held authority over unified groups (ethnic states under kings or chiefs rather than simply ethnicities under no central leadership other than the emperor) will be listed in accordance with the dictionary definition of empire.
It is true that the OFS had sizable populations of Sotho and Tswana; however, Lesotho, the actual core of the Sotho Kingdom never became part of OFS and neither did the core area/population of the Tswana. The government of OFS therefore never had authority over the Sotho or Tswana populations. Concerning the inclusion of Liberia, that will have to be decided by people who know more about Liberia's history. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that literally no Tswana, Sotho or any other leader or polity was brought under the jurisdiction of the two republics is untrue. 'Actual core' is not a phrase used in the lede - and I don't think 'actual core' or 'core/area' are terms that have any definable meaning in political science or history. Anyway, you've seen the ref now. Ackees (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising ref. That's all I was asking for. :) Seb az86556 (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, should have put my reply here, not on your page. But, glad it's been cleared up. Ackees (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Seb raises a good point. if Liberia can be there, certainly the Orange Free State should be there.Scott Free (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And since Liberia can't be in the article, the others shouldn't be also. You need reliable sources saying explicitly that a state was an empire to put that in the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a dictionary to decide what should be included versus using reliable sources[edit]

I started a discussion here. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It is undisputed that some of the Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa may be described as "empires". So, if people wish to discuss "African empires" and have references detailing which kingdoms may or may not be considered "empires", can they kindly cite them at Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. --dab (𒁳) 19:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

great, this article has just deteriorated further without anyone bothering to react to the points raised here. I propose we revert to the disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dab it is clear from my post above that you lost this argument ages ago. 'African Empires' has long been established as, not only a legitimate 'phrase' as you disingenously concede, but also as a legitimate 'topic' to which I clearly made lots of cast-iron references irrespective of dictionary definitions. Go back and read my thorough summary of the argument and then: Give it up, already!

Ackees (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best source you quote list "kingdoms and empires". This is exactly what I am suggesting. It is artificial to treat "empires of Africa" as a topic distinct from "kingdoms of Africa". Hence, merge into Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa, and if you absolutely must, rename to Kingdoms and empires in pre-colonial Africa. I will not comment on the Afrocentrist propaganda you cite as "references", and it is painfully obvious that you are attempting to contort mention of "empires and kingdoms" or "empires and civilizations" into something that was not actually intended in the sources you googled.

You need to move away from the assumption that I am somehow trying to sabotage your article, and recognize the problem I have pointed out. I have also pointed out a straightforward solution that will not lead to any loss of information, nor will it collide with anything in the sources you adduced.

It is perfectly undisputed that "Africa had empires". But unless you want to make this article about Afrocentric propaganda which arbitrarily takes as its scope the continent of Africa, there is no topic of "African empires" that makes any more sense than "Eurasian empires" which would include a discussion of the Chinese, Russian, Akkadian, Macedonian and Dutch empires, in no particular order or context. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Zimbabwe[edit]

Surprised there is no mention of Great Zimbabwe (11th century). Astronaut (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu Empire[edit]

Hey why was Shaka's kingdom wasn't added. There's reliable sources and other things such as on the Zulu Empire page that has many people, kings and such stated Zulus are considered an empire so I suggest adding them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word empire gets throne around a lot in the 19th century. According to the definition, empires are multi-ethnic and are composed of several kingdoms (entities that are usually sovereign) under a single ruling authority (an emperor). The Zulu state was way to homogenous to be classified as multi-ethnic. They all spoke the same nguni language and none of the chiefs under shaka had any real authority. Shaka went out of his way to incorporate all the conquered chiefdoms into a single, unified state. A lot more than his imperial predecessors in Mali or even Ethiopia. Scott Free (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two possibilities[edit]

Either we decide this is a notable concept in Afrocentrism, and write an article about that, i.e. ostensibly about use of the term in Afrocentrism, or we decide it's just a synonym of either just the medieval West African kingdoms, or else of any of the larger pre-colonial African kingdoms, and just merge it into pre-colonial African kingdoms. What we cannot do is keep the article separate and still pretend it's a neutral synonym of pre-colonial African kingdoms.

I get some evidence from 19th century publications that the term was used either in passing, in phrases such as "Asiatic and African empires", or specifically of the Sahelian kingdoms[2] While the use of "African empires" of the Western Sahelian kingdoms persists into the 1970s[3], the Afrocentric meaning of the term arises in the 1960s (with titles such as African glory[4], The splendor that was Africa, Tracing black heritage, The African experience etc.), all catering to the African American community of the US civil rights movement era.

Nobody disputes there were various empires in Africa, just as in any other continent. The question is, why is Africa the only continent that needs its empires listed based on their location within a continent? The answer is: the Pan-Africanist movement wants it so. Since there is no comparable Pan-Europeanist movement, Pan-Asian movement, Pan-Eurasian movenent, Pan-Americanist movement or Pan-Oceanian movement, or at least none with regular pov-pushing accounts visiting Wikipedia, no other continent has a political interest group insisting that the empires of these continents need to be charactierized by continent.

You will duly note how

Now all these continents of course had their share of empires just like Africa. Try to wrap your mind around the reason they do not have "$CONTINENTAL empires" articles, and why this means that this article needs to be either about Pan-Africanism, or a disambiguation page, or a redirect. Also try to wrap your mind around the fact that the addition of any amount of references that prove that there have been empires in Africa does not address this.

"African empires" can disambiguate to Pan-Africanism just as (exactly as) "European empire can disambiguate to Pan-European nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless whites are the opinions which should dictate the direction of African history I would say the Pan-African argument comes first. 1000s of years of African history do not rotate around the arrival of white people. No one does this for Arabia or India or China. All were colonialized so why does Africa need a Pre-Colonial history as if Europe point of view is the lens we should wash all of African history with.
Why the bias to white arrival, why no Pre-Islamic Africa? or Pre-Christian Africa or Pre-Arabic Africa. Why arrival of Europeans? Yes there is a study of African history post-colonial but it is only a study it is not the primary lens to review or discuss African history. Unless we assume Europe was the civilizing factor in Africa. 1000s and 1000s of years of civilization are now rotating around a few years of colonial rule. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pan-African" argument is a 1970s fringe view, its notablility mostly limited to the identity politics of the African American community in the United States. It is preposterous to impose concepts of US politics on the ancient history of Africa. Far from "coming first", it falls under our WP:FRINGE guidelines. Please get off your high horse and stop abusing Wikipedia as a soap box for your ideological rambling. --dab (𒁳) 12:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have at least had the courtesy of googling Pan-African before you made that ridculous remark. What Identity politics of African-Americans are you discussing? At least know the history of Africa if you plan to edit it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you made any sense in your argument to justify reverting what is classified as African Kingdoms. Pan-Africanism what do you know about it. Can you please direct me to the Pre-Anything history of European empires? Like Pre-Rome. or Post-Immigration? And please edit the work and not the editor
If you want to rename Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa (the actual name), discuss that there. Meanwhile I agree that this material does not belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not edit on feeling. Please explain why an article titled African empires cannot have content discussing African empire? Is the material I added not African Empires. If we edited on "feeling" or agreement among a choir i dont think the content would be of any use to anyone. A democracy of wrong opinions is not valid. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the history of Europe is very commonly discussed in terms of the Pre-historic, Pre-Indo-European, Pre-Christian and Pre-modern periods. If you don't like mainstream terminology, ramble about it on your blog, or write a letter of complaint to the president of the English language. Wikipedia just reflects mainstream terminology, and it is futile for you to complain here if you dislike aspects of that.

Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you can show that a topic has notability in expert literature, you can write an article about it. If you cannot, no amount of waving your hands and whining about academic racism is going to make your case for you. --dab (𒁳) 12:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than the disagreement here is the disguisting lack of civility. I do not need advice about a blog or a forum. Stick to the topic and attack my arguments. Can we do that. Ramble is subjective so I didnt say you were "talking nonsense" or "write a letter of complaint to the ...." so mind your tone. Clearly Wiki is not a democracy but 20 POV do win over 1 pov.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you come here, foaming at the mouth, calling racism. And then you have the nerve to complain about "civility"? Look, I am not interested in your arguments, and I do not need to address them. The only thing I am interested in are your references. Read WP:RS. Then cite your sources. Otherwise you are just wasting your time here. --dab (𒁳) 14:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With every word you write you reveal more and more you real issues. I do not have to prove anything to you. If you feel you are the owner of this page then just tell me so. But otherwise refrain from personal assumptions, name calling, and commenting on things you are not prepared to have an intellectual debate about. Yes racism does exist didnt you know. but shouting racism is not uncivil. Did i attack you? DId i say "you are talking nonsense". then if you see yourself in such high light then behave like it towards this user. Here is a source Asante History of Africa and another one. maybe they are Afrocentric, so does that rule them out in favor of Eurocentric?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRINGE How does that apply[edit]

Unless Pan-Africanism is a myth and African empires I have added are not actually African empires please do not revert my work because you do not like my politics. the politics have ZERO to do with the content added. All empires listed are correct to the theme of the article. A civil discussion is in progress about a merger. Fringe how does that apply when discussing African empires? Leave your anti-African sentiment behind when you come here. Not for 1 sec you looked before you rushed in--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your politics. If you want to discuss politics, get a blog.

If you want to edit articles, leave your politics out of it, and establish a clean case based on the WP:NAME guideline that your preferred terminology is the one preferred in mainstream academic literature. As soon as you make such a case I will be happy to grant you have a point. As long as you just try to argue by brandishing the race card and attacking people, you are not even making valid contributions. You may be ignored, and if you persist you may be blocked under WP:DISRUPT. Now do you, or do you not, have a case to make based on actual literature? --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not dare try and intimidate me, when did you get to Wikipedia my friend? Look at your tone which is a violation of civility on Wikipedia. Or "nonsense" is valid in creating a civil debate. I did not make one politic edit so take the straw man elsewhere. Race card, when did i do that? a valid point you do not like does mean race card. Something called Worldview. as I said, show me where in Unesco they use the term. Where in Ethiopian history is the term? Where in African schools is the term? Okay so it is a pov of the dominant American or Western Academia. It is old school. My point is African Empires stands on its own. If in the lede it needs to be mention a pre-colonial statement (that is one thing) but to spin an entire history of an ancient continent on one historical event is madness. African Empires is enough. Not Pre-Colonial Black Negro empires as some would have called it. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at your remarks, edit the edits not the editor. Race Card, Throwing a fit, Soapbox, politics. all of this time attacking me. Why dont you follow wiki rules since you are some sort of ADMIN and deal with my points in a civil way. Or do the rules not apply to you. EDIT THE EDITS not who or what you think the editor IS--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANd let me state everyone. EVERYONE editing here has politics. Thats how we get balance. If i was you I would not be bring anything different to what is already stated. Someone here must hold the African Worldview else it will be no point in have group editing. Perhaps you never seen or lived in Africa, then I have an advantage you dont. hence something to offer--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
indeed I have politics. My politics are summarized at WP:ENC. If you contribute encyclopedic material, I will talk to you and try to improve articles by constructive debate. If you submit to the project fundamentals, I will consider your edits white noise to be filtered out. No, the "African Worldview" does not need to be defended here. It can be discussed encyclopedically, at the dedicated Pan-Africanism article. If you are trying to actively push this or any other ideology, you will just end up banned as a disruptive pov-pusher.
If you live in Africa, the only advantage you have is that you may contribute your photographs. Otherwise, the only experience we are interested in is your ability to excerpt academic literature. See WP:NOR. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to also offer names that you never bothered to read like Obenga, Mazrui, Diop, Kwesi Prah, Asante, Karenga, or tell you about the UNESCO history project which does not use the word Pre-Colonial. i might even remember going to a University and realizing that Europe is not the sole authority on the history of Africa. Nor considered mainstream outside of the Western Orientalist version of history. But what could Black people know about Africa unless we have authorities such as yourself to teach us.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your politics are crystal clear and stop wasting your time with threats I was here before you I can assure you of that. i built most of the African content on wiki that you admin over. Focus on the article. i am unimpressed with your pointless citation of wikipolicy when you neglected civility. What does African World view have to do with Pan-Africanism?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The fringe of Unesco and all the academics in there[edit]

Unesco decolonializing African history jump to the section since we are discussing mainstream Eurocentrism. I guess Unesco is throwing a fit and foaming at the mouth and playing the race card. I forgot racism is doesnt exist. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-colonial is not the best way to describe African kingdoms[edit]

Pre-colonial as I think someone else mentioned is not the best way to describe African kingdoms. For one Ethiopia has never been a pre-colonial kingdom. So that is one major exception. And you cannot be pre unless you later had colonialism. All we need to say is Ancient/ Historical African kingdoms. Full stop. --Inayity (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the edit war about?[edit]

Can anyone involved in a revert cycle please bring their issues to this page that I am writing this message on? BTW Wikipedia cannot be used for a reference to itself.--Inayity (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is adding content (list of Algerian empires) in good faith, but it's not properly formatted/sourced (also red links). It's a dubious addition. Omo Obatalá (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But then you must address the issue, and make them aware of what the problem is. The talk page is a good place to start such a discussion. Cuz I am just seeing edit warring and I have no idea what is really going on. Also because something is red link does not mean it cannot be added. (I am just stating rule, does not mean I agree he should be adding red links). --Inayity (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almoravid empire missing in picture[edit]

Its an important empire, if someone can include it in map of african empires would be good.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent paragraph added to Southern Africa section should probably be removed[edit]

A couple months ago somebody added a large paragraph in the Southern Africa section before the list of empires. The English was abysmal, with misspelled countries, sentences that did not make grammatical sense, etc. I did my best to fix up the English without changing the meanings of the sentences, and I also made a bunch of the terms into links to other pages, since the paragraph contained no such links. However, in my attempt to improve this paragraph, I came to realize that it also seems to contain several factual errors and generally poor structure, which, combined with the fact that it includes no references, makes me think that it should simply be removed. I am a new wikipedia contributor, though, so I don't feel super comfortable deleting someone's whole paragraph, so I've left it up for now.

Issues that remain after my attempt to clean it up:

-It claims that people in southern Africa created the first ever dry stone walling in 200 BC; however, there are several examples of dry stone that go back centuries and even millennia further than that (Ireland 3800 BC, for example).

-It seems to imply with very unclear language that the creation of dry stone walling in Limpopo is essential to the kingdoms and empires that developed thereafter: after talking about how Kalanga people and Bushmen intermarried, thus "forming the first ever drystone walling in 200 BC," it goes on to talk about how the purpose of this walling was to protect the king (what king?), but then later became a symbol of the king's power (again, what king?). It follows this by saying "This would give rise to the Kingdom of Mapungubwe," which was a kingdom founded in 1075 AD. What does "this" refer to in this statement? It directly follows discussion of the purpose of dry stone walling. Is "this" dry stone walling, or is "this" the intermarrying of Karanga people and Bushmen from the beginning of the paragraph, whose joining is said to have led to dry stone walling about 1300 years before the rise of the Kingdom of Mapungubwe? What is it trying to say gave rise to this kingdom?

-It claims the Mutapa Empire rose in 1450, but I can only find sources claiming it rose in 1430.

Overall, it seems like a very poor overview of Southern African empires. It largely focuses on dry stone walling, but fails to explain how this is actually relevant. It mentions some peoples and a couple kingdoms, and seems to imply there is some kind of through line linking them, but it doesn't actually provide such a through line. In the end it just sounds like a jumble of somewhat dubious statements related to Southern African history.

Should it be deleted? Furzellewen (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories