Talk:Kingdom of Dagbon

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the Kingdom of Dagbon is a valid African topic; I will work on this article, and include it under former monarchies of Africa and states of pre-colonial Africa. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling
In the article “Yakubu II”, it’s spelled "Dagbɔŋ", not "Dagbon". Which is it? Tuvalkin (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @Tuvalkin The Dagbani language spells Dagbon as Dagbɔŋ which is synonymous to Dagboŋ or Dagbaŋ.Of course, the absence of those special characters is why it is spelled as Dagbon in the English language. See the following sources:
 * https://www.webonary.org/dagbani?s=Dagb%C9%94%C5%8B&search=Search&key=dag-Qaaa-x-Dagb&pos=&semantic_domain=&search_options_set=1&match_whole_words=1
 * Dnshitobu (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Absence? You just spelled it right. Tuvalkin (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Misdating
… it was founded by a warrior named Tohazie (c. 1250), who arrived in present-day northern Ghana in the 11th century …: Either it should be c. 1050, or it should be 13th century. --Mmh (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Dating inconsistency.
It is stated in the article Dagbon was formed in the 11th century. The only source used is this book in brackets (https://books.google.com/books?id=vf4TBwAAQBAJ&q=Kingdom+of+Dagbon&pg=PA25). On page 25, the book mentions 1480 AD not the 11th century. The other source used is some blog (https://ghanahistory.wordpress.com/tag/gold-coast/) which doesn't even mention any dating at all. I've used the 1480 dating per the source book employed in the article. I'll change it back to 11th century if there is some reliable source for that.Kwesi Yema (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Article needs to define this kingdom
The article recounts the history of Dagbon since the early modern era. Before colonization, the kingdom is well defined as a pre colonial state. However, the status of Dagbon as a kingdom in modern Ghana is not well defined in the article. What are the legal mandates of this kingdom-status per the Constitution of Ghana? Are they an actual kingdom with a Constitutional monarchy or is it ceremonial? The article needs reliable sources that explain properly what this status is. In most African articles, there is a wiki article on the pre-colonial state as well as the ethnic group itself. For example, Akwamu and Akwamu people or Kingdom of Benin and Edo people. If there still exists some form of ceremonial monarchy, then it must be well defined with reliable sources in the article.

I have removed unsourced sections which talk about the kingdom in contemporary matters. For example, I removed the unsourced "Military" section which claims the kingdom has some armed forces but there is no single source to explain the legality of this military force. Reliable sources are needed for the definition of the status of this "kingdom." Kwesi Yema (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on Ashanti Empire section
Should the information about the Ashanti Empire be maintained? Please read the conversations from below. Kwesi Yema (talk)

"In the mid 18th century, Dagbon was absorbed into the Ashanti Empire as a tributary state.   The expansion of the Ashanti Empire into Dagbon is refuted by some researchers such as A.A. Lliasu. Scholar Karl J. Haas argues that "claims of Asante dominance over Dagbon in the precolonial era have been greatly exaggerated." "

Ihikky, mind explaining why you keep deleting this entire information when the only source that argues for a reassessment of the conquest says it has been exaggerated. On page 207 of Haas' journal states that the conquest of Dagbon by Ashanti was recorded in 18th century sources the Kitãb Ghanji and A reliable account of Gold Coast Guinea. The author however depends on oral sources, and he claims that "historical record has been manipulated by writers from southern Ghana" without providing any evidence for this accusation. He makes a good criticism of the 18th century sources. However, there are 19th century documented sources by Thomas Edward Bowdich and Joseph Dupuis. He criticizes these sources comparing it to oral sources. He mentions one historian, A.A. Lliasu who refutes this conquest. Haas concludes that this conquest "have been greatly exaggerated, having been founded upon the speculation and misinterpretation of spurious evidence." This is why it was summarized in the wikipedia article that AA Liasu disputes the conquest while Karl J Haas argues against it. Doug Weller, Danial Bass, Skllagyook, zzuuzz and JzG, please help monitor this converation for a consensus to be reached. Kwesi Yema (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Kwesi Yema (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for opening this discussion @Kwesi Yema. As you have pointed out, many researchers, not only Karl J Haas have contested the claims you are taking as a fact. Anyone who read Dagbon knows that, Karl and Iliasu are the most prolific and comprehensive when it comes to the Kingdom's history. But we, as Wikipedians are not to argue for any of them. We must rely accurate information. I know you advance Ashanti Empire's on Wikipedia. But please, put that aside and let's adhere to Wikipedia's editorial rules.
 * Our job as Wikipedians are not to take sides. Please see: No original research Verifiability, Neutral point of view. In the meantime, refrain from adding those highly disputed claims, until we reach a consensus.
 * Remember to be Neutral: Neutral point of view
 * Remember to be Not Use Original Research: No original research
 * Remember to use only verifiable information: Verifiability
 * Again refrain from putting that disputed claims, we will invite many editors to discuss it here.
 * Thank you. Ihikky (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "As you have pointed out, many researchers, not only Karl J Haas have contested the claims you are taking as a fact. Anyone who read Dagbon knows that"
 * Where are the peer reviewed claims of these researchers? Where are their detailed interpretations and arguments?
 * "But we, as Wikipedians are not to argue for any of them. We must rely accurate information. I know you advance Ashanti Empire's on Wikipedia. But please, put that aside and let's adhere to Wikipedia's editorial rules."
 * Saying I am an editor who advances for Ashanti Empire is a serious accusation. The text you want to delete is well sourced by historians and scholars of both sides. Those who speak of the conquest have been recorded in the article while the source by Haas, skeptical of the conquest has been address by the article. You are deleting the entire paragraph without providing valid reason as to why.Kwesi Yema (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Kwesi Yema,
 * We will reach a consensus on this, be patient. In the meantime, I urge you to cease adding the disputed text.
 * Thank you.
 * I am inviting other editors of the page here. Please do so too.
 * @Dnshitobu @Masssly Ihikky (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "We will reach a consensus on this, be patient. In the meantime, I urge you to cease adding the disputed text.
 * Thank you"
 * No, do not delete the text until a consensus has been reached to justify why the entire paragraph must be deleted. Claiming this is disputed text when you haven't provided any argument. This doesn't give you the right to delete everything when a consensus has not been reached yet. Kwesi Yema (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kwesi YemaYou are misinforming the public by placing information which is being disputed by researchers, as you have agreed, in your first discussion. I understand you don't think Karl J Haas and Iliasu are convincing enough, even though they are the most published on Dagbon.
 * I have nothing against what you wrote, but we must not misinform the public. Cease your disruptive edits until a conclusion is reached.
 * Thank you. Ihikky (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "You are misinforming the public by placing information which is being disputed by researchers, as you have agreed, in your first discussion"
 * Disputed by which researchers? What are the peer reviewed sources that translate the paragraph as misinformation? Lliasu is the one who disputes this, and it has been acknowledged in the text. The skepticism of Karl has been expressed in this same paragraph. Thus, the points of historians from all sides including those for, those against and those skeptical were clearly explained in the text.Kwesi Yema (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Admin Ihikky (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How does this paragraph violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR? There is no universal agreement on scholars by this conquest thus reliable sources were shared from all sides. Sources in agreement of the conquest were addressed. The particular historian who was skeptical was also cited and the scholar who disputes it was mentioned. How does this violate NPOV or WP:OR?Kwesi Yema (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Disputed by which researchers?"
 * It's shocking that you are asking this. Anyway, I have tagged an admin to regulate this absurdity.
 * In the meantime, STOP! Also take your time to abreast yourself with: No original research Verifiability, Neutral point of view.
 * Thanks for your engagement @Kwesi Yema. Ihikky (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "It's shocking that you are asking this."
 * Why are you not proving the reliable sources and arguments of all the researchers who dispute this? You are also not providing an explanation of how the paragraph violates verifiability, original research and NPOV. How does this not meet verifiability when all the sources can easily be accessed on google books or jstor with provided page numbers for verification? How is this WP: OR? How is the against neutrality when the sources explore the different views of historians? Consensus has not been reached yet you keep on deleting the entire paragraph.Kwesi Yema (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kwesi Yema has made a complaint to @Acroterion. Please follow at:
 * User talk:Acroterion
 * Thanks for pausing with your edits @Kwesi Yema. Don't worry, we will solve it soon. Ihikky (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please, both of you, work it out here, or start a request for comment for more opinions. Administrators do not arbitrate content, so I recommend that you both stop adding and deleting the disputed content, starting right now, until you have worked this out. Otherwise, I will fully protect the page, and the wrong version, whatever it is, will stay there until this is resolved. You are both on the edge of sanctionable behavior.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone. I apologize for my late arrival to the discussion. It's been challenging to focus on anything besides the ongoing geneocide in Gaza. I've briefly skimmed through the introduction of this section, and it appears to be about the "Ashanti absorbing Dagbon kingdom." From my initial assessment, this seems to be an old issue that Wikipedia editors have rejected in many other articles. I remember having to deal with claims like that on the Ghana article. Such a claim should only be included here if there's substantial evidence from independent sources. By "independent," I mean sources whose primary information is not limited to accounts of the incident and is broad enough to provide a comprehensive perspective. --Masssly (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The incident was documented in primary sources of the 18th and 19th century ranging from Gonja manuscripts and European documents. The sources provided are secondary sources that access the primary sources as well. All views with regards to scholars that agree and disagree on this topic were expressed clearly in the statement. Kwesi Yema (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please @Kwesi Yema, provide the primary sources you mentioned. Also provide the manuscripts you mention. All the references you included that support the claim are not reliable.
 * In the meantime, I will again urge you to stop adding the claim until we reach a consensus.
 * Thank you. Ihikky (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)