Talk:Prempeh I

Wikipedia Process and Etiquette
A student of mine was trying to edit this page and reports she got warned off by another user. If that is so, I am disappointed. Seems to me that any disagreements about how this entry looks ought to be dealt with on this discussion page in an open and civil manner. Could be that the corrections made to my student's work were for the better, but it is unfortunate that she felt completely shut out.mrs (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add, that I explained the whole multiple author process again and that she can, if she sees the need, add information to the page. She said she'd been told no. I can only assume that there was a misunderstanding, but I also suggested she make use of this page if need be. mrs (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I specifically told your student is that she is not to blank out the edits of others by pasting her information on top of them. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, but undoing the valid works of others is bad etiquette. New contributors should fold their information into the existing framework of the article without destroying its continuity. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I'll communicate this to her, in case she has other details to add. mrs (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia Style
One person made edits that he summarized thus: "facts-only, less-POV and more likely not to read as a copyvio or a fansite". I think I know what all of this means, but I would be interested in hearing more about these issues, even if they seem to have been corrected since then. mrs (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What was written into the article was cumbersome, unencyclopedic and did not address the personality at hand so much as it did the background events. I added in that of hers which was specifically germane to the topic, the rest goes elsewhere or on a blog. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was taking another look at those old edits and see your point about background and style. There might be a few things that need adding, but I've been encouraging her to talk about that here.mrs (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing that still needs doing here: citations.mrs (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Yes, it has references, but the lack of citations in the text makes it impossible for anyone to know which information came from where. mrs (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Content Questions
There are interesting differences in the conclusions between Howusu's version of 24 Feb. 2008 and the current version. Howusu's version talks about offices he held and also when he died. The current version only mentions him returning as a private citizen. I'm guessing that this difference has something to do with Howusu coming from Ghana, but it seems like there is more to his life than just returning as a private citizen in 1924. This issue suggests a new section might be added to the bottom: place of Prempeh I in national consciousness of Ghana today. mrs (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no systemic bias going on, so no need for the tinfoil hat, Wikipedia welcomes all non-vandalous editors, and actively seeks out subSaharan Africans, as sorely underrepresented on the Internet in general, there's even policy on that. The text was hugely cumbersome, and needed a rewrite so that there is focus and clarity in English. If it can be put in a non-circuitous a-then-b-then-c fashion so it is readable, run with it. Check a start-class article on some figure of significance but not a lot to sift through (I do not suggest Hillary), it will give you a basic layout of how and where the information should be basically laid out. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reply suggests that my comment on content missed its mark. Let me try again. I understand the stylistic problems you are talking about. Those are not at issue. I am simply trying to create an opening for dialogue about the content, since your edits changed factual content, not just style. As far as the new section I suggested goes, it is often quite appropriate to discuss the image of a national figure, not just the history of the figure himself. Here's an example. Peter the Great has a history that took place in his own time, but the history of his image long after his death is also significant. Here' I'm thinking of Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, The Image of Peter the Great in Russian History and Thought (New York: Oxford UP, 1985). Now there's no need to get hung up on this angle, but I thought it might have something to do with the different perspectives you two have on the man. It's at least worth thinking about. mrs (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * mrs I admire your vision for this article as both a biography and social history but the content (and headings) falls way short of both of these aims. I am suprised that your student used the types of sources they did (I understand this was a School/University project) why was this and perhaps this could be the source of further debate among you and your students as to sourcing, wikipedia and the spread of (mis)information on the internet. (RPZed (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

as an aside
I do want to thank you for how proactive you're being about this. If she would like to cut her teeth on a fresh topic that does not have an article, start from the ground up and watch as it progresses (something I've enjoyed with each article I start), take a look at List of missing Africa topics and see if something has appeal. Happy editing. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of this exercise is somewhat different. And starting fresh at this point in the semester is not an option. This was a stub when the student started anyway. mrs (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerns raised on article
A user has added this sentence (which I moved here) to the article "Please disregard this entry it goes against all modern literature and primary sources relating to these events. For a definitive account see Ivor Wilks, Asante in the Nineteenth Century, 1975" and other concerns that I have left there. These may need to be addressed. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

[The Scouting chapter is factually inaccurate as Prempeh I had nothing to do with the early stages of the scouting movement and nothing in the literature left by Baden-Powell would support this. The left-handed Scout handshake can indeed be attributed to a chief on the Gold Coast but it was not Prempeh I. Prempeh I was captured and taken to Elmina Castle before being exiled. The person who taught Baden-Powell about scouting in the jungle was the scout who led the British forces he was a part of to Kumase, Chief Kweku Andoh. The left-handed Scout handshake had a less romanticised origin as it was purportedly a dedication by Baden-Powell to his friend Chief Kweku Andoh who was left-handed and had the tendency to shake hands with his left. In fact, Baden-Powell dedicated his account of events leading to the capture of Prempeh I, 'The Downfall of Prempeh', to Chief Kweku Andoh: "(Without His Permission). To Chief Andoh of Elmina. My Guide, Adviser and Friend." What can be said is that the peace that now exists between the Ashanti and Fanti tribes began with the interaction between Prempeh I and Chief Kweku Andoh while he was held in Elmina Castle. They became friends on account of Kweku Andoh's kindness while Prempeh was detained. The peaceful relations between the Ashanti and Fanti tribes was further cemented when Chief Andoh's grandson, R. P. Baffour was Principal of Kumase College and assisted in turning the college into a university, the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykeb (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)