Talk:Sack of Old Oyo

Thanks you

I'm interested in Yoruba history, as it is my herritage Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit Reversion

@Oluwafemi1726 posted the following on my Talk Page. I thought it would be better to address it here:

Hello, i Saw you edited, my Wikipedia page, and edited something completely different? That had nothing to do with my page? Maybe you an make as standalone wiki page on a separate sack of old oyo you're discussing? Because this has nothing to do with my sack of old oyo, that not only has more sources, but older, more credible, by yoruba historians in the 19th century. I just want to know why you deleted everything on my wikipedia, and wrote a random write up, with barely any sources. This Wikipedia took weeks, of editing, and requiring multiple wiki mods reviewing the evidence of both sides. Which can be seen her ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack of Old Oyo ),

furthermore, your "sources" the oldest, one is 1959, again, i think anyone that's being neutral can see i have more "ancient", or "grounded" sources, that link directly to people that lived in that error, (1800's) Like arguably the most accredited Yoruba Historian Samuel Johnson. Even in the battle box, he removed the Sokoto caliphate, when Ilorin was under the leadership of it, and completely ignored the fact that after this, led directly to fula settlements in Yorubaland. All of this can easily be found by reading The history of the Yorubas : from the earliest times to the beginning of the British Protectorate, by Samuel Johnson, which is by far the most accredited Yoruba historical book prior to colonialism. Again, can you explain why you removed basically my page, and sourced a different sack, or fall to the one i'm discussing? This is evident, as you removed my soruce which goes into detail, the sacking, and how towns left, like "All the towns owing "any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged"[1. While your "sources", you didn't cite a single one, or have any real reference, in context to where you put them in your text. its obvious you just looked up random sources, to cite in your wiki page, that you didn't read. My sources, citations, i put direct quotes which you didn't. every citation goes directly, to the text/narration of the part of the page its cited in. And i again, included the oldest document in both of our edits, and arguably the most important, and detailed book on yoruba history, prior to colonialism.

I don't appreciate you just removing, my wikipedia , and adding a shorter one, with less "official" sources, with no quotes, for no reason. This is grounds for reporting, so i'd appreciate a response.

So @Oluwafemi1726, thanks for your concern and work on the page. First off, it's not your page, so you need to stop being possessive and take my edits for what they were: a good faith attempt to improve the page. Before threatening to report someone, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies.

About my edits: they were mostly to correct the egregious errors that you had made. Considering your message above, I will assume that you were the editor concerned and will not bother going through every error to see where it originated. Here is a list of the problems that I was trying to fix:

• As both the page and your message above make clear, you are not a very fluent English speaker, and the article was full of grammatical mistakes.
• You cited Samuel Johnson's 'History of the Yoruba' in 4 different formats, which is confusing and sloppy. Still, you did not cite the page, only the chapter.
• In your message you complain that I have few sources, but in fact my version has more sources than yours. Perhaps you didn't realize that you were re-citing the same Johnson book multiple times?
• You added multiple redlinks, even though the redirect Katunga exists and could have been used if not for your typing errors.
• Some of the content was repetitive.
• You mentioned the Sokoto Caliphate multiple times, even though your sources do not, which is WP:OR. Ilorin paying nominal tribute to Sokoto is not the same as saying Sokoto attacked Oyo Ile.
• You include information on the aftermath in the background section.
• You contradict yourself when you say that Oyo-ile did not become a Fula outpost but also that the battle marked the beginning of Fula settlement in southwest Nigeria, and also both of these statements are unsupported by sources. If you have evidence then add it, but make sure to include the page number.
• The entire Aftermath section is uncited, except for the brief quote from Johnson.
• You include information on the history of Ilorin that doesn't belong here.

Now I'd like to respond to your message. First, my version did cite Samuel Johnson, twice. I even included a page number, which you had failed to do. Second, Johnson is a source for both Ogundiran and Akintoye, so they are not making this stuff up. Third, a source being older does not make it more authoritative. Usually it's the other way around, since newer sources can incorporate other viewpoints and more recent discoveries. Fourth, I find it amusing that you'd accuse me of not reading the sources when you apparently think that British colonialism in Nigeria started after Samuel Johnson wrote his book, and when you included original research that is not in the book, or at least not in the place you cited. Including a single direct quote does not wash away your mistakes. Fifth, you seem to think that Wikipedia editors voting to keep the page means that they have vetted your sloppy editing - this is obviously false.

Finally, as I mentioned in the proposed deletion discussion, you have misread Samuel Johnson. You have not realized that Oyo-Ile was attacked and 'sacked' multiple times. You are taking information about the first sack (including your quote about Gbodo) and applying it to the final sack, after which the city was abandoned. When you say that the version I created "has nothing to do with my sack of old oyo", you're very close to finally realizing your mistake! Hopefully this message will help you finally get there. The reality is that the two sacks are separate events, and should be treated as such. In fact, your evident confusion about this is exactly why I proposed to delete this article in the first place and incorporate all of the content into Oyo-Ile, where the distinction between the first attack and the second could be made more clear. I was outvoted, so the page stays, but that doesn't mean it has to be so poorly cited and error-ridden. Catjacket (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I almost forgot. Please do report me! I am confident that I am in the right, and would welcome some external adjudication. Catjacket (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

• As for citation, yes it might've looked choppy, because of the citation, bot but yes i did use a citation, that linked directly to it, that you removed for no reason. Again, my simple quest5ion is, can you explain why you removed this citation exactly? - > All the towns owing "any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged"[1 . Was it not relevant? Or accurate?
• Quite frankly, i don't even believe you read any of your sources. I cited samuel Johnson "a lot", because he's what would be considered a "primary source"as this topic happened in his time period, and basically he had a "closer" connection in a sense. Samuel Johnsons book, which i citied multiple time, would be more "credible" as its less removed, and more "primary' to the events, that the modern "sources" you put in, as those are just compiled.
• It's also weird you removed the fact katunga was sacked by fulani's, and other allied muslims, which is even attested to in multiple brittacina https://www.britannica.com/place/Saki-Nigeria . And which is also pretty self evident, that the fall of the deserted capital led to fulani settlements popping up in Yorubaland.
• "You mentioned the Sokoto Caliphate multiple times, even though your sources do not, which is WP:OR. Ilorin paying nominal tribute to Sokoto is not the same as saying Sokoto attacked Oyo Ile.". Hey i know its different than finding random sources, but can you go to page 263, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_the_Yorubas_from_the_Earl/RL7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=katunga, and see who ilorin asked for help? This whole time period ilorin was aided by sokoto, and was paying them tribute like you said. And in the battle section i included Sokoto & ilorin.
• "You contradict yourself when you say that Oyo-ile did not become a Fula outpost but also that the battle marked the beginning of Fula settlement in southwest Nigeria, and also both of these statements are unsupported by sources. If you have evidence then add it, but make sure to include the page number." Again i never said oyo ile became a fulani outpost, i said it marked the beginning of fulani outposts in the South west. Yes which i can provide, it seems like you didn't even bother to read my sources. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Eclectic_Review/OHysrpYam-UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=katunga&pg=PA380&printsec=frontcover Go to page 380, "they have been losing side of bornou, have been gradually extending themselves towards yariba, and entrenching themselves in strong walled towns in different parts of the kingdom. One of these, called Alorie, was stated to surpass Katugna in wealth, population. Another Fellatah town, near the bank of the Niger, and in the north-east of Katunga"
  • So thank you for provign my aftermath was cited. Should i cite a source for every sentence i write, i didn't know that was required per wikipedia policy.

Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, the Gbodo quote is not relevant. It is about an Ilorin attack on the city that failed, not the sacking after the Battle of Ilorin. You need to read the entire quote in context: "Oyo was a great city, which could not be rushed by the Ilorins nor could it be invested and reduced by along siege, for there was always the fear that a prolonged siege of their metropolis by aliens might rouse the great chiefs of the country to its aid. Thus failing to take the city, Shitta's next tactics were the subversion of the remaining large Yoruba towns that still showed any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged."
• Again, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. In this case, read: WP:PRIMARY. TLDR: Primary sources are usable, but secondary sources (like Akintoye and Ogundiran) are better.
• For 'Katunga was sacked by Fulanis', that is a new source that you did not cite in the article. Please add it.
• On page 263, Johnson is again talking about a different battle, preceding the Battle of Ilorin. Are you just reading Johnson from the Google Books preview? You won't get the full picture. I'd recommend using Internet Archive. There is never any mention of Sokoto troops at the final destruction of Oyo-Ile. In fact, there isn't even mention of Ilorin troops! Only Ogodo. Read for yourself.
• This is yet another source that is not cited in the article. But you should not add it, because it's not talking about the Fall of Oyo-Ile, it's just talking about Fula expansion into southwest Nigeria in general. It's also another primary, colonial-era source which is less reliable than modern Nigerian historians.
• You don't need to cite every sentence, but you do need to cite every claim. If you have a citation in the middle of a paragraph, and no citation at the end of a paragraph, all your claims after the citation are uncited.

I notice that you did not address most of my points, especially the one about multiple attacks on Oyo-Ile. I hope that the Gbodo point above finally helps you understand. This article is about the fall of Oyo-Ile, not about the entire war that preceded it. That page is Battle of Ilorin. If you want to put the Gbodo content etc. somewhere, it should go there. It does not belong here. Unless, that is, you would like this page to cover the entire war, in which case we should rename it Eleduwe War and rewrite it from top to bottom. Or perhaps you want this page to cover all the attacks on Oyo-Ile, in which case we should do that on Oyo-Ile.

In any case, I want to make this page better organized, more grammatically correct, more accurate, and more informative. I am willing to work with you on this if you feel there is certain content that should be included, as long as it is relevant and well-cited. But I'm not going to fight you if you're going to act like this page is your personal fiefdom, and you prefer incorrect and garbled content to content written by someone else. If you want to burn this page down so that you can be king of the ashes, be my guest. Just read the books, and read the Wikipedia policies. Catjacket (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

1. On Gbodo being irrelevant – I don’t agree. Samuel Johnson writes that after Ilorin failed to take Oyo directly, “Shitta’s next tactics were the subversion of the remaining large Yoruba towns that still showed any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged” (History of the Yorubas, p. 263). This shows that the weakening of Oyo’s network of towns was part of the same process that culminated in its fall. Even if you see Gbodo as “not the final sack,” it is still contextually tied to the sequence of attacks leading to the destruction of Oyo. Wikipedia guidelines (WP:DUE) allow contextual information so long as it is sourced and relevant.
2. On Sokoto’s role – Again, Johnson explicitly notes that Ilorin “asked for help” from the Sokoto Caliphate (History of the Yorubas, p. 263). Whether or not Sokoto’s troops physically marched on Oyo, its support and tributary relationship influenced Ilorin’s strength. Removing Sokoto entirely risks oversimplifying the power dynamics.
3. On Fula settlement – The Eclectic Review (1829) notes: “they have been gradually extending themselves towards Yariba, and entrenching themselves in strong walled towns… One of these, called Alorie, was stated to surpass Katunga in wealth, population” (p. 380). This clearly ties the Fulani expansion with the decline of Oyo, and therefore supports the “aftermath” section.
4. On primary vs. secondary sources – I acknowledge WP:PRIMARY says “secondary sources are usually preferred,” but it does not ban primary sources. Johnson is not only “primary” but also regarded as “the most important, and detailed book on Yoruba history prior to colonialism” (per multiple Nigerian scholars). His proximity to the events and oral traditions makes him indispensable for context. Secondary sources like Akintoye often rely on Johnson, so dismissing him weakens the historical foundation.
5. On scope of the article – I’m open to renaming or restructuring if consensus favors covering the wider conflict (“Eleduwe War”). But until then, Johnson’s material on progressive assaults (Ilorin, Sokoto links, Gbodo, and aftermath settlements) is relevant to the fall of Oyo-Ile. And again, just because modern historians, often like to cut and paste sources, because of ulterior narratives in history, i prefer citing older books, that are closer to primary narratives, as a lot of modern sources you cite, cut and paste, things they want.

I’m happy to work collaboratively, but I don’t think dismissing Johnson’s details as “irrelevant” or “garbled” is fair, given how central his work is to Yoruba historiography. Instead of cutting these parts, we should integrate them with clearer citations and context. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using Johnson. I also used Johnson in my edits. My issue is that I want the article to be well cited, coherent, grammatically correct, logically organized, and focused on the subject at hand, and right now it is none of those things. It seems that that is the core of the disagreement here: what are we actually writing about?

Here are the options, as I see them:

1. Fall of Oyo-Ile, about the decline and abandonment of the city of Oyo-Ile, not the empire as a whole. This is what I thought this page was about the whole time.

2. Eleduwe War, about the armed conflict, part of the Yoruba Wars, that ended with the abandonment of Oyo-Ile. It would not replace Battle of Ilorin, but would include that content as well as the sack of Gbodo etc. that you've talked about above.

3. Fall of the Oyo Empire, a page on the model of the Fall of the Roman Empire that covers the whole process of decline in detail. If we are willing to take on a project this large, we should bring in friends and make a whole History of the Oyo Empire page instead. I do not think that we have the resources necessary to do this properly.

Considering the disagreements surrounding this page, I think making a full Eleduwe War page is the way to go. Please let me know your thoughts. Catjacket (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I recommend you read WP: CSA and WP:AGEMATTERS relative to Johnson and that Eclectic Review 1829 thing. Basically, using old colonial-era sources is problematic and should be avoided where possible. Again, this isn't to say we shouldn't use Johnson. Just that we need to be aware of his limitations. Catjacket (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for laying out the options clearly. I think we are now moving closer to the heart of the disagreement.

For me, the reason I’ve cited Johnson heavily (and yes, even the Eclectic Review 1829) is because, while they may be “old” in terms of WP:AGEMATTERS, they are foundational in Yoruba historiography. Modern secondary sources often rely directly on Johnson, and even when they diverge, they rarely do so without acknowledging his authority. As Nigerian historians have pointed out, he remains the most detailed narrative of Oyo’s decline, and his use of oral traditions places him closer to the events than later academics who are reconstructing at a greater distance. That is why I resist calling his details “irrelevant” or “garbled”—they are the core of what later historians debate or build on. It's also ironic, because a lot of your modern "sources" heavily rely on Johnson, who was also a Yoruba, so it's not like this was a racist 19th century european, or european descent.

On scope: while I understand your preference for narrowing this to “the fall of Oyo-Ile” in the most literal sense, that ignores the chain of events (Gbodo, Sokoto’s aid, Ilorin’s role, Fulani settlements) that Johnson and other sources clearly show as part of the process leading to the city’s abandonment. These are not random side-notes — they are part of the narrative arc of Oyo’s collapse.

That said, if you feel strongly that those wider events don’t belong here, then the Eleduwe War can absolutely be its own standalone article, that you can make if you want. That way, we don’t erase Johnson’s context, but we also allow the “Fall of Oyo-Ile” page to remain focused. What I cannot agree with is simply deleting that material as “irrelevant.”

Finally, I want to emphasize that I am open to collaboration. The goal should be an article that is both accurate and well-written, not one that erases the oldest sources on Yoruba history, in favor of modern summaries alone that cut and join sources all the time. Johnson’s work, combined with modern historians, gives us a fuller picture than either on its own. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, then here is what I propose. Let's restore my changes to this article, since a lot of that work was simply cleaning up grammar, layout, etc. You can then make the individual changes that you think are necessary, including adding more Johnson citations, etc.

Meanwhile, I will start drafting an Eleduwe War page as a personal draft, and invite you to collaborate on it. Once we have something we both like, we can publish it to the main wiki. Does that work? Catjacket (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you can maybe fix grammar,and sentences, etc. as english isn't my main language. And maybe add some things you would like. But again your edits looked vastly different than mine. I wouldn't appreciate that.

As for the Eleduwe War, page that sounds fine, the only problem is i think we're in different time zones Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I made the changes that I thought were necessary to make the page better. I didn't want to add anything, I wanted to remove content that I felt was repetitive or unrelated. That's why I think we should use my version as the starting point, and then you add stuff on top of that where you disagree on what was taken out, even if it's just copied from the old versions. Because I would have to re-write your version pretty thoroughly to correct everything, and then we'd be right back where we started, so I'd rather not re-do the work I've already done.

I will tag you in the Eleduwe war page, and we can work on it. No rush, so time zones don't matter. But if you're in Nigeria we're only one time zone off. Catjacket (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I still think starting from your version makes my work look erased, since a lot of what I added (especially Johnson’s details) just disappears. If you want to clean grammar, flow, and organization, I’m fine with that, and I’d actually appreciate it since English isn’t my first language. I will, when i get the time, rearrange things, and fix my grammar, etc. But I’d prefer that we use the existing version (with Johnson’s material intact) as the base, and then you improve the grammar and layout on top of it. That way, the substance isn’t lost in the process. As for the Eleduwe War page, that sounds good. I’ll be happy to collaborate with you on it once you tag me. Time zones won’t be a problem. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, then it's really not worth the time. The whole idea, after all, is to fold all the content in Sack of Old Oyo into the new Eleduwe War page. We'll make the new article that we both agree on, including a section on the fall of Oyo-Ile, and then make a redirect to that section. Catjacket (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thats fine. But like i said i believe, and will keep supporting the justification of it being a standalone page. It marks the desertification/abandonment of the city, a unique historical event. It deserves its own standalone page because it is distinct from the broader Eleduwe War. Redirecting it into your Eleduwe War page would effectively erase all the work I put into documenting this specific event, including Johnson’s firsthand accounts.

If you want to draft an Eleduwe War page, that’s fine, but that should not come at the expense of removing or absorbing the Sack of Old Oyo. Both can exist independently. Even if they are connected.

I am happy to improve grammar, organization, and citations on the Sack of Old Oyo page, but I will not agree to any plan that turns it into a mere redirect. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Then in that case the Sack of Old Oyo page would be more like the version I drafted, and all the context and stuff about Gbodo would belong on Eleduwe war instead of here. Otherwise we're just doing extra work, without resolving the problems of this page. Catjacket (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)