Talk:Amadu II of Masina

Correct form of name
Although I did not specialize in study of the history of the region, I've read a lot about it, and do not recall ever seeing Amadu Seku referred to as "Seku Amadu II." The latter is a common Western format, but seems to me to be inappropriate in this context, and out of sync with literature & local usage. Suggest reversion. Use of a disambiguation page and/or "redirect" templates can then guide the readers (for instance for the case of Ahmadu Seku Tall. A succession box for the 3 rulers of the Massina Empire could also be used on the three relevant pages.--A12n (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a formal request to change the article name back to what it was.--A12n (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Seku Amadu II → Amadu Seku – Name more commonly used in literature and local usage relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC) A12n (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose (vote changed-based on evidence) This is certainly a more common name (although the Islamicized version of the name could have a case for it as well). But the II, III style on wikipedia is simply the worst possible option for an accurate name for the person. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The common western form as used in English-language literature is the one that should be used in en.Wikipedia. See for example The Cambridge History of Islam p.376.  See Talk:Seku Amadu III for a fuller discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (voting for the proposal I made). Usage in English language literature varies, and arguably puts the numbered name forms in secondary importance. Reference should also be made to academic literature in French. as well as to popular usage. The numbered name forms are alien to local usage in Mali, so I'm suggesting we don't need to give them more importance than they deserve. An additional point is that numbering the names of rulers is characteristic of a hereditary monarchical succession, whereas in the case of what is called the Massina Empire, as I recall from reading, the nature of the rule and succession were matters of some discussion. More at Talk:Seku Amadu III.--A12n (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What matters, according to our naming conventions, is not the local usage but what reliable English-language sources use. Books are better than websites.  Amadu b. Amadu is often used, as is Amadu II.  Some books say "also called Amadu Seku", but not all. Amadu II is consistent with Amadu III, which is by far the most common English name for his son.  Masina was a theocracy, with the ruler technically chosen by a council of elders, in practice always from the Lobbo family.  All the shaykhs (sekus) were called Amadu, so the history books number them to distinguish, a bit like numbering popes. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Request. I will be off-web for a week starting tomorrow, and ask that no final decision be made before 4 March so I have a chance to reply to additional points. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem on the delay. WRT local usage and English usage, I would argue that the latter is really not well established in this case, and indeed there is plenty of usage of the local terms which are by now established in their own right (esp. if as I think is necessary & appropriate, one considers academic usage in French as well). I'm also thinking that the numbered names usage must have begun within a limited Western academic context, and could arguably be compared to the short career of "Nigerois" - a journalistic coinage (easily distinguishable from references to Nigeria) with no local relevance in Niger, which actually was for a while enshrined in the New York Times style book and picked up by other news sources.--A12n (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've posed the question to the academic lists, H-West-Africa & H-Africa, and hope for some additional input from replies. Part of my concern is the impact of Wikipedia elevating a form (Seku Amadu II) of an appellation (Amadu II) that is used in some academic sources, but not in all, and apparently in selected contexts, to a wider usage that it does not merit. (Wikipedia content, of course, is a first/early point of contact many people have with many subjects, and is mirrored widely as is.)--A12n (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support restore to stable title - per WP:BRD but stable title also happens to be more common in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Noting new title change. Still maintain that original title "Amadu Seku" is appropriate, possibly with a parenthetical component such as "(Lobbo)" to help disambiguate from Ahmadu Seku Tall. There are issues with the numbered form, and extending it with "of Masina" arguably creates an artifact. A more extensive discussion is available here.--A12n (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Fulani language, "Amadu Seku" means "Ahmed, son of the Sheikh," a bit like "Prince John". The most common form in Google Books, English-language results, is "Amadu II".  Most sources for this article use that form.  He is called "Amadu Seku" by some English-language sources, usually "also known as", but Amadu II dominates.  Naming conventions (use English) is the relevant guideline. Amadu II is the most common form used by reliable English sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow up on article name & move proposal
First of all, thanks to the powers that be for extending discussion on the move proposal. Disappointed that there was not more input. FWIW, still maintain that despite good intention, the original move from the stable title leaves us with a suboptimal solution for naming the article - anything using the numbered names will require modifications (as we have seen with Seku Amadu II and now Amadu II of Masina) that in effect create artifacts (per previous discussion). This could have been avoided by first proposing the move and going through a discussion period. I'll gladly support any proposal to move the article back to Amadu Seku and consider any proposal to move to Amadu Seku plus a modifying term, probably parenthetical, to facilitate disambiguation.--A12n (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick addendum: About a month after this decision I got an email from a professor emeritus who had used the numbered form of the name, and he indicated that the numbered form was a matter of convenience, and that were he to choose a title, it would probably be based on the indigenous usage. He wrote that he may indeed have been the source of the numbered usage, picked up by some other academics as well as reference works. IMO, the title of this article needs to be changed back to a more appropriate form, and if necessary, I'd suggest that WP guidelines be modified to accommodate situations like this, where counting instances on Google and article searches in English-only without consideration of context may lead to a solution that however well intended, is neither stable nor helpful to users. I remain ready to support a proposal to revert the title to the original.--A12n (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(NB- There is some further discussion at Talk:Amadu III of Masina.)--A12n (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)