Talk:History of West Africa/Archive 1

DYK
It would be very nice to have an interesting fact from this detailed and good-looking article on template:Did you know. I don't have time to read the whole article right now, but perhaps you as the author might find it easier. If not, I'll have another look tomorrow. Thanks &mdash; Pekinensis 06:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Done--thanks! Dvyost 21:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Human Arrival
12k BCE seems extremely late for the first habitation (people were already in South America by 13k BCE). Bones don't preserve well in the tropics, but even so - are there really no artefacts predating this? Rwestera (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I thought that humans had spread throughout Africa by 100,000 years ago. ElijahTM (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC) If, humans were able to cross a 100-mile sea, to reach Australia, by 50,000 BC, surely humans were able to walk to West Africa from origins in East Africa, long before that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.122.175 (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jihad??
I'm thinking that the use of the word "jihad", especially in the first paragraph and in the paragraph discussing the incursion of the Almoravids into the Empire of Ghana, is a serious misinterpretation of the word. Jihads are fought to *protect* the faith, not expand it (it is contrary to Qur'anic law to force someone to accept Islam). I would like to change all the inappropriate uses of it, but wanted to sound the idea off someone first.

Thanks,

MMT (not yet a registered Wikipede)


 * Thanks for posting this concern here for discussion, as I think it's very worth bringing up. My own thinking in writing those sections went like this:  as you can see from our own jihad article, a lot of folks interpret that word a lot of ways.  I'm not as sure about the Almoravid line, but I do know that secondary sources consistently use the word "jihad" to describe the conquests of Usman dan Fodio and Umar Tall; I'm fairly certain dan Fodio and Umar Tall used the word themselves, though I don't know enough Arabic to prove it.  As a tertiary reference source we really can't try to impose our own interpretation of jihad (see the policy on no original research), but rather we need to fairly represent the work of scholars in the field.  That being said, I've in no way done an exhaustive study of the sources--if you can cite some articles showing that the consensus is against describing these Muslim conquerors in such a way, I'd be happy to help you change it.


 * Oh, and you should go ahead and get that user name! The Africa articles can particularly use more concerned editors like yourself... --Dvyost 17:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Whazup?
Okay, this article looks like it's in need of some serious help. The timeline looks pretty crazy to me. I'm reluctant to change it cuz I don't know where the author got his/her info from. If they pulled it out of thin air, I got a much bette timeline for African history. If not, please cite your sources so we know this is a legitimate timeframe. thnx Scott Free 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no particular author, this is a wiki. If you find factual errors, correct them if you want, no need to ask for permission. It is important that you cite your sources, especially if making a major edit.--Ezeu 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

human sacrifice
I know a white person put that section there cuz only they think that's a major part of African or West African history. That exact same section already exist on the human sacrifice page. Putting it here is absolute crap and the anonymous editor ought to be ashamed of him/her self. You don't see a section dedicated to Human Sacrifice on the history of Western Europe or Eastern Asia. And I assure, both those regions practiced it. The author could only name abut four states in west africa that did it. Yet, this is supposed to be a major part of West Africa history. Get the Fu(k out of here! Scott Free 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)