Talk:Argungu Emirate

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kebbi Emirate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features/arts/2008/mar/12/arts-12-03-2008-003.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304112230/http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/ArtsandCulture/5393252-147/story.csp to http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/ArtsandCulture/5393252-147/story.csp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kebbi Emirate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721135557/http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/ArtsandCulture/Travel/5396182-147/story.csp to http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/ArtsandCulture/Travel/5396182-147/story.csp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

History section

I think now we have Kingdom of Kebbi, the history section should probably just have a single subsection summarising that article (ie. pre-Fulani conquest history) and focus more on later history? BlueSahelian, thanks for creating that article.

Also, I've moved the page to "Argungu Emirate" because it appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, it gets 95 results on Google Scholar rather than "kebbi emirate"'s 20 and avoids confusion with other emirates in Kebbi State, if that's okay (but happy for the latter to be used throughout the article). Kowal2701 (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

In this edit from 2012 someone removed Lange's article citing WP:FRINGE. It does look pretty fringe to me, as an outlandish theory influenced by the Hamitic hypothesis, but Lange is a reputable scholar, judging from how I've seen other scholars discuss his views and his German wikipedia article, and it's a reputable journal (Anthropos). It's also got 11 cites, not much but not insignificant, and this source refers to it but doesn't judge the theory. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think Lange's views are fringe. I generally avoid citing his works, mostly because I usually don't understand what he is writing about, but his writings on Hausa society and sarauta are so detailed that I don't think he should be wholly ignored. Maybe they should be used with caution. About a year ago, I came across an old article where he defended his approach. It might be of use to you. BlueSahelian (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I think how you've done it by attribution at the kingdom article is good, if it looks a little too prominent it's only cus it's a stub, in an origins section that'd be fine imo. That article was really interesting thanks Kowal2701 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Ohh sorry, I wasn't the one that added Lange's Assyrian origin theory for Kebbi; that was Викидим. I'm not sure I support its inclusion, but you're right, expanding the article would take care of that concern BlueSahelian (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

My bad. Maybe we could we make a note to put after each of Lange's theories to basically say some of his work has been criticised, summarising Henige 2007 and Lange 2008? Pinging Catjacket as they'll likely be more familiar than me. There's also this 1979 review of Lange 1977, and a 2006 review of a collection of all of Lange's pre-2004 work, both negative. There's also this exchange between Lange and another scholar in 1978-79 1 2 where they also criticise his work. These reviews 3 4 commend him for his courage etc. but aren't exactly positive (there's more reviews of Lange 2004 here). The latter one says Lange 2004 explains himself as having rejected colonial diffusionist narratives in the 1960s, but later thought this position isolated Africa from the outside world. Idk Kowal2701 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Dierk Lange is somehow not fringe and also completely out of his mind. Since these areas of African history aren't that well studied, he remains a source of legitimately important research, information, and insight, even if his conclusions are often bizarre and far-fetched. I think he can and should be included as a source, but anything related to his hyper-diffusionism should be flagged as heavily disputed or something like that. Kingdom of Kebbi is a good start, it just needs more content, like you said, and perhaps a direct comment on his conclusions not being generally accepted.

Definitely the history section here should be moved to the Kingdom of Kebbi page, like you suggested Kowal2701. Catjacket (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is a summary of my take on Lange to provide background for my edits. I am not an expert, so I can be easily persuaded to change my opinion.

1. Lange is definitely a legitimate researcher staying firmly in good graces of his colleagues (WP:FRINGE does not apply by a wide margin IMHO)
2. We can thus easily use his work for confirmation of the consensual parts of history (from the review parts of his works), like the 16th century dates for the beginning of the Kebbi Kingdom. Still, I will be OK with removing references to Lange as long as some other research source is provided.
3. We can also use the same works as source for mainstream ideas that are not yet settled (like the existence of some polity in Kebbi prior to the 16th century) from the same reviews and indicating that not all researchers are onboard ("some researchers ...")
4. Lange's own claims (Assyrians founding Kebbi) are nothing short of outlandish. IMHO they still can be listed in the article with a clear indication of them being unsupported by other researchers (the current "Lange suggests ...", stronger language like "Lange speculates that ..." is also OK with me).

Викидим (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with both of you, I think there's some good consensus here. On 4. I think it depends on the size of the article, smaller articles can make some sentences which would normally be fine undue, and WP:PROPORTION is another thing that I think should take precedence. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)