Talk:History of Africa

Africa Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Top‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

July 2024

@DaniCBP: I already explained what the problem is (WP:OR), so you not "seeing it" doesn't make much sense to me. Why should we resort to original research when we have plenty of properly sourced maps to choose from? M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not able to cite tertiary sources like other sourced maps on WikiCommons? I haven't studied that period in depth, but I can't find fault with it Kowal2701 (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are like any other content, WP:VERIFY and WP:SYNTH apply to them too so that we don't have to check for errors ourselves. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know which is your problem man.

If I have done in depth research of the topic, I’ve researched into the sources of the content from Commons, where is the problem to begin with? A 25-page list of sources where only in a couple of regions you can find something referencing Commons, does that invalidate all the work?

”We don’t have to check for errors ourselves”, aren’t you unable to think properly to maybe acknowledge that I myself may have checked for errors?

“ Why should we resort to original research when we have plenty of properly sourced maps to choose from?” Yeah, sure, why improve, why make better content, let’s hate innovation and people working hard for the good of the readers and research. DaniCBP (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem and I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from trying to personalize the discussion.

let’s hate innovation it's not our job to innovate. In fact, it's against our policies. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's not personalize.

Let me go to the point: it is claimed (by you) that my map, which is properly sourced on its description, is OC and thus shouldn't be included.

Let me tell you some unsourced or partially unsourced maps used in this same page without complaints:

File:The Kingdom of Aksum.png

File:Ghana successor map 1200-es.svg

File:Ghana empire map.png

These maps have been used here for years without full sources nor complaints.

I'm telling you again, my map isn't OC, you have a file with a full list of its sources on its description. Again, I'm not claiming that the map is 100% correct and accurate (it's impossible to do that for 1880's Africa), but every region has been researched as you can look up on the source list.

If you find it necessary, I'll copy here the full list of sources if you don't want to check the PDF file. DaniCBP (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other OR maps exist (though, I'll note that those are about small areas and not the whole continent), doesn't mean that we can add more to the article.

every region has been researched researched and combined (by yourself) into a map that hasn't been published by reliable sources is where the issue lies. I understand that there are times when some minor OR is tolerated (because no maps exist for the period), but this isn't one of them, and while I sympathise with what you're trying to achieve, you also need to understand that the rules are have been created for a reason. M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

@Zoocat56 the phrase "the revolution of history is commonplace" is meant to there was a lot of movement and change with lots of states rising and falling, but I can't think of a better way of saying it Kowal2701 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial historiography

@M.Bitton how is it factually incorrect? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: stating (in Wikipedia's voice) that "the academic discipline of history arrived with conquest and colonisation of Africa" cannot be right given that Ibn Khaldun is considered (by some) to be the "father of history".

Out of interest: which page of the cited source says that? M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton you're right to flag it up, the source cited [1] doesn't say anything close to that. The sentence "African historiography became organised at the academic level in the mid 20th century" also contradicts it. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Saved me the trouble of reading the whole document. M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries thanks for pointing it out :) Kowal2701 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Periodisation

There's no agreed upon periodisation for African history. ([2], [3]) Currently we have Ancient Africa, Medieval and early modern Africa, Colonial Africa, Postcolonial Africa. Below is what I propose.

Ancient Africa (4th millennium BC - 6th/7th century AD) following this, contradicted by this which uses 300 CE
Postclassical Africa (7th century-1250) the term postclassical has no support from sources, but the date range is supported by the General History of Africa (this is the one I'm least happy with)
Medieval Africa (1250-1800) following this
Early modern Africa (1800-1935) the term "early modern" has no usage, but Modern Africa starting from 1800 follows this and this. To clarify, from what I've seen no books periodise African history into colonial and postcolonial.
Africa since 1935 or Contemporary Africa (1935-present) the 1935 break follows the General History of Africa, books generally have a break between 1930-1945. The growth of independence movements is crucial to the postcolonial history, so it makes sense to start here.

I'd be interested to hear what people think, it's all very contentious Kowal2701 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is much better. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana

@Catjacket idk about the 6th century as a founding date, it contradicts the ancient section, and I can't find it in that source, idk whether a thesis on a different topic is the best source. This says in archaeology Ghana Empire refers to 3rd-13th centuries, and this says from the 2nd century (although makes a fringe argument) Kowal2701 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say 6th century as a founding date, it says that Ghana was a dominant regional player by the 6th century. Frankly all we know for sure is that it was powerful by the 800s, when it appeared in written sources. Unless there's an archaeological source somewhere that argues a more precise founding date, we probably shouldn't lean much on one or the other estimate. Catjacket (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but we sort of have to imply a date Kowal2701 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...do we? Why can't we just say "Ghana existed for sure by this date", or "Ghana emerged sometime in the middle centuries of the 1st millennium CE." Catjacket (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have a section break at the 7th century, if we discuss Wagadu prominently in the ancient section it implies it was founded between 3rd-7th century Kowal2701 (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that pre-7th century discussion of Ghana is limited to the Tichitt culture, its collapse during the Big Dry c. 400BCE-300CE, and the revival of some vague proto-Soninke world 300-700 CE. We can say that Ghana (along with Takrur, Djenne, Mema etc.) were established as actual states sometime during this period, but we can't speak on how it was constructed, what trade was going on, etc. We just don't have any sources for that period, including archaeology (to my knowledge - might be worth checking the few papers that have dealt w/ the Mema area, but I don't believe they speak to any kind of state structure). Catjacket (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds much better Kowal2701 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what to do with the Prehistory of Africa section. Technically anything before c. 800 for west Africa should be in there. I guess it should just cover history before the 4th millennium BC Kowal2701 (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]