User talk:WAR OF THE GOLDEN STOOL

Welcome!
Hello, WAR OF THE GOLDEN STOOL, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was War of the Golden Stool ‎, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Best practices for editors with close associations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Good Day C Fred
 * Please note that all our Sources are taken from the written history in British books, The National Archives (United Kingdom) and other Military Museum Records. These by definition are not neutral sources. They only give the British version of what happened and not the African version. There should be room made to balance any Historical representation of Shared British and African Military History by African and European or British contributors. Also European Wikipedia editors need to be more aware, tolerant and less xenophobic against contributions from African sources, accusations and opinions that an edit by an African contributor is biased can be equally stated that edits by British or European contributors are by virtue of their race also biased and not neutral. Bearing in mind that edits made about Colonial African history, by Black Africa contributors, should by definition be allowed to include citations from official Oral African history sources. This is because at that time African history was Oral. Editors in Wikipedia should not be in the practice of whitifying African colonial History.

I wonder if you can advise, given your expertise, if there are any rules that prevents citations from officially sourced Oral History being written into Wikipedia articles.

As an African historian and expert in the War of the Golden Stool and other Colonial Wars, I do not think that being African, and sourcing facts about the African side of the War, to include as edits that have been written by British people in their own words, is a conflict of interest. I do however take your point that sources should be summarised etc...

It would be interesting to know the racial identity's of the persons who have written the ridiculous edits that King Prempeh was a commander in the war of the Golden Stool. (Interesting being the operative word, and definitely not necessary) Or that the War was called the War of the Golden Foot Rest. (Hahahahahha, that's Our Royals in Ghana who were laughing in absolute horror, when they saw that their War history is being told in such a way) Imagine! I do not think it is best practice for Wikipedia editors to quickly imply that a person has made an edit because they may have a conflict of interest. How about that they have made an edit to state the truth, or that they have made edits to correct untruths.

Having described each edit that was made in the appropriate boxes, I notice that the editor who reverted the edits did not read the reason for the edits, and that you appear not to be worried about the fact that the article is filled with factual historic inaccuracies. It has thus been left as published, in a way that is giving misleading facts to the general public. My edit was written to correct these historical falsehoods. Thank you for recommending that I send My edit to the list of names. However, before I do this, maybe it would be relevant to ask your list of editors, to peruse My previous (aggressively) deleted edit, so that I can be well informed of changes needed. I would also ask why have these editors not already corrected the false historical facts that are currently in the article. I have waited to send this response, to see if anyone from your list will use the edit already done to correct the false historical facts. But I see nothing has changed.

My personal research into the imbalanced way in which Wikipedia presents colonial African history, is that British Intelligence agencies, use Wikipedia to alter the historical records to suit themselves. In my opinion the article as it stands, has already been written by people who may need to declare their own affiliations with British Crown Agents or with British intelligence agencies of one kind or another. Wikipedia is being used to validate, and make look perfect British Imperial History, and editors are using the platform to place heavily distorted historical records in the public domain.

I do not work for the Military Museum, but have worked with their Military Archives, in the Fort where the War took place, which is now a Military Museum. No Conflict of Interest. My chosen Wikipedia name is because in Africa, We are given names such is He who has been born to fight in War. when We are born. It is thus for this reason why I have Chosen this name.

I am not aware of how one gets compensation for writing or editing a Wikipedia article, as only joined the other day. WAR OF THE GOLDEN STOOL (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I would like to make a few points here, if you'll bear with me:
 * Whilst I understand that there are issues finding sources that give the African and/or Ghanaian perspective, that doesn't exempt any sources from Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Oral sources also fail the policy of verifiability and its related policy prohibiting the addition of original research. Wikipedia only publishes information which has already been published in existing reliable, independent sources. Whilst colonialism was a great wrong which has left an ugly legacy for an entire continent, Wikipedia is not the place to right those wrongs.
 * I'm not sure how you got the idea that Crown Agents and British intelligence agencies are manipulating Wikipedia, but the bias you see is simply because Wikipedia reflects what has already been published in reliable, independent sources. If the sources are biased, then that will be reflected in Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows. It doesn't have anything to do with government agencies attempting to rewrite history, that already got done over 100 years before Wikipedia existed.
 * Cheerio and happy editing. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 09:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope We can bear with each Other Mako001 (C) (T) whilst We engage in Wikepedia talk. Maybe another way to approach this is to perhaps ask the moderators of this page to kindly state the reliable sources regarding where the following information was sourced that currently appears in the edit. Ashanti Uprising, please confirm the reliable source of this name for the War of the Golden Stool.

Golden Footrest, please can anyone confirm the source of this name for the War of the Golden Stool.

Otumfour Prempeh Ias a Commander and Leader of the War

What does the Return of Prempeh I have to with the War of the Golden Stool.

I am confused as well maybe the readers of this page, as to how does Ashanti territory become annexed to HM dominions in 1901, and then become a Crown Colony at the same time based upon the current edit. The Gold Coast (British colony) Wikipedia page states that the Gold Coast was a British Colony, if it fights a War against Asante, and it wins that War one would expect that it automatically gets annexed to the Gold Coast (British colony), which was definitely not a dominion in 1901.

I say this because I checked the 1907 Imperial Conference page and it states, that the conference decided to cease referring to self-governing British colonies as colonies and conferred upon them dominion status. Canada and Australia were referred to as dominions in the conferences statements while Newfoundland Colony and the Colony of New Zealand were granted dominion status by royal proclamation on 26 September. Natal and Cape Colony would unite with the two Boer colonies of Orange River Colony and Transvaal Colony, which had been given self-government in 1907, to form the Union of South Africa as a dominion in 1910.

This page clearly states that colonies were only granted the status of dominion by royal proclamation. There is no mention of the Gold Coast (British colony) being conferred dominion status in this 1907 meeting. In the royal proclamation September 26 1901. But, if you check out the Wikipedia page for the Ghana Independence Act 1957 and it says the Gold Coast Colony which was a Crown Colony and therefore part of Her Majesty's dominions, and that Ashanti was likewise a Crown Colony and part of Her Majesty's dominions. This does not make sense, why are they not listed in the 1907 Imperial Conference, along with Canada and Australia etc, as having been given conferred official dominion status. There should be a royal proclamation if so.

The Dominion of India, Wikipedia page, states it was an independent dominion in the British Commonwealth of Nations, and it only existed from 15 August 1947 and 26 January 1950. Likewise the Dominion of Ceylon as an independent country in the Commonwealth of Nations, it only existed from between 1948 and 1972.

The Dominion of Ghana, Wikipedia page states that ....during the first three years after independence, from 1957 to 1960, a Westminster system of a government was in place and the British monarch served as Queen of Ghana and head of state. Although the country was sometimes referred to as the Dominion of Ghana during this period, it never held the formal status of Dominion within the British Empire.

I don't know about you but I am just checking these edits for consistency as I write this talk and I am very confused. the page goes on to say, Ghana never held the legal status of "Dominion" within the British Empire, a status given to self-governing colonies (given legislative independence by the Statute of Westminster 1931), including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa; as well as India and Pakistan from 15 August 1947, one month after their independence, and Ceylon for a few months of 1948. The status of Dominion ceased to exist in its previous form from 1949, as the former Dominions became "independent Commonwealth countries"; however, the term continued to be used for thirty years, and Nkrumah demanded Dominion status for the Gold Coast in 1951, as one stage in the negotiations for independence.

The business of War is a bloody and a messy affair, this edit of the War of the Golden Stool does not add up. The editors seem to be making up their own minds up, as to what is a Crown Colony, and what is a Dominion without referencing the official source.

In the case of Ashanti, the official document from the London Gazette says it was 'Annexed to HM Dominions', it does not say it became a Crown Colony, it was not a British immigrant or white settler colony. I am thus also confused as to why I am being told that My stating what is inside the actual official record, Ashanti Order in Council 1901, gets deemed as being biased, or as writing with a conflict of interest. Furthermore all of the responses on this talk page, have never answered any of these valid questions, as to why is Prempeh on this page as a Commander of the War when he had already surrendered and was already in exile in the Seychelles and he is on record stating he had nothing to do with the War. I mean the edit as it stands is a distortion of history. I have to assume that the contributors who deleted My edits, are biased because they seem to be unable to respond to valid questions about published false facts that are historically untrue.

The edit I made sticks to the Parliamentary/London Gazette/British Officer book sources. I used exactly the same sources that were already in the edit. There was no oral historical additions. I accept that the statements should be summarised, however there are other word for word speeches already in the edit. My gut feeling therefore, is that the edit I made does not represent a conflict of interest, but that it simply altered the false historical facts in the edit, and those who published the false facts are unhappy about their false fact having been removed by My edits.

I therefore conclude it was reverted unfairly and that Wikipedia is being used by British Crown Agents and Secret services to push false historical facts, into the public domain. Please allow Me My right to freedom of speech. That may not be the opinion of other's but it is My opinion and I should have the right to say so. Thank you.

'''Please can whoever responds try to answer the factual questions laid out, again and again and again. I do not think responding to My opinions has mileage. We Can All Learn From Each Other, We Can All Bear With Each Other''', WAR OF THE GOLDEN STOOL (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(untitled)
Hi Vif12vf Please state why you undid the edits.

The factual information in the Edit you have left online contains wrong and very misleading content about the War of the Golden Stool. We work as historians with the Armed Forces Museum (Ghana), which is where the Seige of Kumasi during the War of the Golden Stool took place in 1900. We edited this article using records that have been kept in the Museum for over 100 years. We also used sources directly found in the UK National Archives. In compliance with Talk page rules when someone questions one of your edits, I understand I must reply with a full, helpful rationale.

The historical records in the Museum show, King Prempeh I was not involved in the War of the Golden Stool, and was defintley not a commander of the War. was already in exile after he surrendered his Kumasi Seat to Queen Victoria in 1896 and the War of the Golden Stool broke out. The War of the Golden Stool has never been called the War of the Orange Footrest. All Our sources in Ashanti and the curator at the Museum have never heard of such a thing.

Ashanti was not a Crown Colony at the End of the War, as there is no mention of Crown Colony in the 1901 Ashanti Order in Council. The original official public notice in 1901 and in 1906 does not refer to Ashanti as a crown colony.

We changed Ashanti Uprising, because in the Jstor document entitled, the British Colonial Office Approach to the Ashanti War of 1900, the Colonial Office states that the legal opinion of the day was that the British were fighting against a separate country. This in military terms means that it was not an uprising in defiance usually of an established government.

W hope that Our edits did not violate copyrights. If they did can you kindly state where. In the edit our Museum Curator suggested we provide some evidence why the War was also called The Yaa Asantewaa War of Independence, using historical evidence about the life of Queen Mother Yaa Asantewaa, who was the Supreme Commander of the War. This information was taken from the Catholic Museum in Kumasi, and from the book the Great Drama of Kuamsi.

King Prempeh's return to Kumasi had nothing much to do with the War of the Golden Stool. He wrote to the British governor to inform him he had nothing to do with the War. The edit provided readers with historical facts about the real commanders who fought the War. All references re: above statements cited in the edit you undid. I will await your expert reply before reverting the changes. Thanks