Talk:Dahomey Amazons

Change

I dared change Fon belief from animism to Vodun as this is more accurate. Bechamp — Preceding undated comment added 04:46, September 24, 2005‎

Recent revert

I hit the button too fast; I intended to explain that I removed recently added unsourced information. — mark ✎ 14:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The info added had some truth to it if my memory serves me right. But I don't have a source to hand - Xed 21:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate it to be reckless. Here's what I removed (it needs to be sourced anyway):

When the French men took the Dahomey amazons to bed, the unarmed amazons tore out their throats with their teeth. The French men were dead in the morning.

Added by 66.52.55.174 (talk · contribs), whom I have notified of the issue. — mark ✎ 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Disputed passage

Hello, I believe that the following passage must be removed from the article since there is no substantial evidence suggesting that "Much of the conflict in that place and period was conducted for the purpose of obtaining slaves from other tribes in order to sell to American and European slave traders." On the contrary, it seems that it was mostly conducted to obtain captives who would be sacrificed at the Great Customs and Annual Customs and "to make Dahomey always larger" (Dahomey Kings devise) as pointed out by the author of the following francophone article: http://www.angelfire.com/az/univers/Dahomey.html Sandro Capochichi

I just reverted myself; I first reverted another instance of you removing this disputed passage, but then I thought I'd rather let it go and try discussing here. I think both versions have some truth to it. Of course the Europeans were not the only destabilizing factor in the region. Either way, whatever we are going to write about this, it will have to be sourced, and that is why I support leaving the statement out for now. — mark ✎ 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Delisted from GA

I delisted this article from GA becuase it does not cite any of it's sources. If the further reading section is references, the article still needs to have some inline citations. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 06:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

With the citations being added, does this article meet the criteria to become a GA again? --Andrea.Kinnel (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this article still needs some improvement (expansion, reorganization, double-checking citation accuracy, etc) before it meets the criteria. I'm hoping to work on it once I have some extra time. Would you be interested in collaborating on this, Andrea.Kinnel? I don't know how much experience you have with GA projects, but I've brought a few articles up to GA status before, and I'd be happy to work with you. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

clarification needed

Toward the end of the article, under "customs," a sentence reads, "Captives were often decapitated." Does this mean that the Amazons, when captured, were decapitated, or that the Amazons decapitated their prisoners? More likely the latter, but clarification would be nice.

The victims the amazons captured were decapitated. Sometimes, instead of decapitation, the amazons removed the genitals of their victims. Both instances of mutilation were done as war trophies (the way ancient egyptians removed genitals of their enemies to keep count of inflicted casualties).Scott Free (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

We know that they were called Amazons by Westerners, but what was the group's original name? --- Noclevername (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahosi ("our mothers")

Scott Free (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction...Ahosi is a generic term for queen among the Fon (the people of Dahomey). The name of the actual warriors was Mino (which does mean "Our Mothers"). Sorry about that. So, Mino was the word for Amazons and Ahosi was the word for queens. The term Gbeto was used for early amazon units, but they were used strictly to hunt elephants for the king.Scott Free (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

TV Documentary 'Warrior Women with Lupita Nyong'o' (2019) uses name Agoji. JDE 79.78.194.181 (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The use of the European term “amazon” in the article title and throughout the article is inappropriate and offensive. As noted in the article they were called Mino and Agoji. The use of the term amazon by the Europeans is a historical fact but it was not their name. The article requires an edit to correct this. Canuckft (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Obituary from 1859 regarding King Gezo - Moved from article here

I moved this good faith edit from the article to the Talk page as I question whether it significantly contributes to the article, which is focused on the Dahomey Amazons, and not so much on King Gezo:

"The April 20, 1859 edition of the Macon Messenger carried a short obituary notice for King Gezo stating, " The Richmond Dispatch says: His majesty, the King of Dahomey, the great negro seller of Africa, has departed this life. He was in the habit of ransacking all the neighboring African kingdoms, for the purpose of making captives, whom he sold to the slavers. At his funeral obsequies, his loving subjects manifested their sorrow by sacrificing eight hundred negroes to his memory. He is succeeded by his son, King Gezo II."

Can we discuss whether this should be returned to the article? Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Mino vs Nonmiton

This is ridiculous. One cannot cite Alpern who specifically wrote Mino as the name for Amazons meaning 'our mothers' and write nonmiton instead while keeping the Alpern citation as a reference. Several other books also cite Mino as the name for amazons. The only source for Nonmiton is this anonymous contributor here on wikipedia. Unlike nonmiton, Mino may not be used in contemporary Fon to mean 'our mothers', but that is not the point. The word may have been Mino and could have been subject to folk etymology interpreting it as mi 'we' and no 'mother'. Alternatively, it could originally have meant 'our mothers', but this phrase would have been lost in contemporary Fon. In support of the former proposal, the construction mino with mi = we and no = mother / owner is paralleled by the similar Fon construction mi 'we' + to 'father' = (male) community leader. The point is that the word recorded for Amazons was mino, not nonmiton. The contemporary Fon speaker who edits this article without sources has no knowledge of the historical Fon language. The worst part of this is that mainstream media are now using the word n’nonmiton to refer to the Amazons based on this baseless claim. Wikipedia at its worst, unfortunately. 81.194.30.203 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Abolo

Regiments

I would like to add information about the different regiments in the women's army. The women's army consisted of a number of regiments: huntresses, riflewomen, reapers, archers, and gunners. https://en.unesco.org/womeninafrica/women-soldiers-dahomey/pedagogical-unit/4 Cindychristy1231 (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Nasalisation of on in the Fon language

See French Wikipedia which uses the form Minon And also https://mobile.twitter.com/SenaseK/status/1236142252260569088

--AliceBzh (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

additional support, or professional review?

There is one particular passage that stood out to me because it was added in so recently.

"In 1864, Captain Sir Richard F. Burton documented over two thousand tribeswomen serving as warriors and reported how two-thirds of them were maidens with passions and love between each other. He also mentioned “a corps of prostitutes” kept for the Amazons’ use. Several years earlier, in 1850, English naval officer Frederick Forbes wrote down his own observations: “The Amazons are not supposed to marry, and, by their own statement, they have changed their sex. ‘We are men,’ they say, ‘not women.’ All dress alike, diet alike, and male and female emulate each other: what the males do, the Amazons will endeavour to surpass.” [8]"

The block of text has one source that points to one website whose sources only refer to itself and the author's/group's own publications instead of a wider range of sources, and appears to be applying one specific observation onto another specific observation in this case, and both the source and book referenced in the source are under a bit of scrutiny. The block of text itself almost just matches what is on the website word-for-word. Do we have some other sources to back this big block of text up? Actual links to professional papers, first-hand or second-hand sources for these observations and reports? Or perhaps this whole block should be sent for proper review? 2600:1700:C021:42E0:A510:9C2D:14BD:9809 (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed it primarily because it was plagiarism from the link. The link itself does not appear to be a reliable source, but it also looked like it may have been from a book. Google Books showed that book title but only had a brief mention of the topic on page 75. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Political role edit

I reverted here edits to the "Political role" section.

• Their edit summary: "Yoder's work did not indicate that the Mino, as a whole, supported these issues for reasons as shown by the change. More broadly, the implication that any Mino member supported trade in palm oil over enslaved peoples by Yoder's research has been widely disputed by Dahomey scholarship, most notably by Robin Law and David Ross."
• My edit summary: "Revert per WP:EDITORIAL with use of "However" and apparent use of Yoder against themselves; despite Law & Ross mentioned in edit summary, no actual use of them here."

As I mentioned, the use of "however" and using the source against itself seems problematic. Looking at the source directly, this is the passage:

"The Fly Party's members were unified by their opposition to the Creoles, the Crown, and the male military, advocates of frequent wars and slave trading. Within the Fly Party, Dahomean entrepreneurs anticipated great profits in the growing palm oil trade, while Amazon soldiers, religious leaders, and local chiefs opposed continued unrest caused by conflict with Abeokuta. Together with many ordinary citizens, these individuals formed a coalition of discontented people who had frequently paid the cost of Dahomean economic and military policies, but who felt deprived of a fair share of the profits."

If Wikipedia's text needs to be changed, it should be in line with the above without this using-source-against-self editorializing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Erik fair point. The problem is the statement, "The Mino took a prominent role in the Grand Council, debating the policy of the kingdom. From the 1840s to 1870s (when the opposing party collapsed), they [the Mino] generally supported peace with Abeokuta and stronger commercial relations with England, favouring the trade in palm oil above that in slaves. This set them [the Mino] at odds with their male military colleagues." Yoder's paper simply does not state that. The abstract text you provided, where it uses 'Amazon soldiers' could refer to the only two Mino examples in his full text (plural) while the paper also references to more than 150 other Mino that supported keeping (then) current practice (those loyal to Da Souza). Yoder does not state that the Mino, as a collective, favored palm oil trading. We're relying on text from a generalized abstract when Yoder's more detailed account reads,

"In the mid-1840s, a new coalition, the Fly Party, arose to challenge the Elephant Party's political and economic dominance in Dahomey. Composed of individuals who had been unable to benefit fully from the slave trade and who desired the return of Britain as a trading partner, the Fly Party was willing to restrict future slave wars to forays against small manageable targets outside of Abeokuta's sphere of interest. Such small towns and tribes were popularly referred to by Dahomeans as 'flies'. In addition to counselling peace with Abeokuta, the Fly Party, eager for a reconciliation with England, favoured the establishment of the palm oil trade as Dahomey's major source of commercial revenue. Although the nineteenth-century record clearly indicates the emergence of an opposition party, members of the Fly Party are less easily identified than are persons in the Elephant Party. Because the European traders and government envoys, who frequently spoke of two factions or two schools of political thought in Dahomey, were primarily interested in recording the activities of the king and of the Creole slave traders, they left an imperfect description of individuals in the Fly Party."

In other words, Yoder posits two imaginary parties of his own invention (see his footnote 40), one of which he fully admits he cannot ascribe membership, let alone associate with an entire group. Not only does this entry erroneously represent Yoder's theory as he presents it, his Elephant/Fly factions representation has long since been abandoned by historians. The entire premise of an opposition party favoring palm oil over slaves was refuted in more detail by Law, Ross, Bay, et al., decades ago. This Wikipedia section entry is practically the only reason Yoder continues to be cited by popular media. Dux96 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that reliable sources are not perfectly reliable every time, but it is generally problematic for an editor to refute a reliable source based on their own reading of it. It would be better to use Law, Ross, and others (especially if they specifically refute Yoder) and reference their work instead. I don't know if that's available to you. Deleting Yoder as a whole is perhaps another option? I'm not the most qualified to determine that, would be better for editors who work with articles about history to determine, as I work primarily with film. So I'm only trying to apply the general principles, no offense to you, and hope one of the above solutions can be done. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Erik No worries. I think I understand your point of not using Law, Ross, Bay, et al., in a blanket refutation. And I don't think Yoder should be deleted because there was a movement during that time (along with Akinjogbin) to begin showing the economic trap Dahomey was in. I'll think about it some more how to show that along the lines of your suggestion for The Woman King#Role in slavery. More relevant to the Political Role section, more information should be included to flesh out Mino/Agojie influence on Dahomey's Kings' decision and policies. Dux96 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If it helps, use in-text attribution to name Yoder. I don't know the best way to merge different historians' works, especially if they are contradictory. I'd suggest looking elsewhere on Wikipedia for editors with history-article experience and getting their take too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits by IP address

An IP address added this information which the author clearly states that the story for that information is "possibly apocryphal" as there is doubt about the authenticty of that source. (Kwesi Yema (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC))

No Consensus for Move

@Canuckft Leaving a comment on a two year old discussion does not mean that you automatically get consensus to move the page. First of all the term Dahomey Amazons should be retained since its more commonly used, see WP:COMMONNAME, aside from that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.--~~~~ Catlemur (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the move and advised the editor to follow WP:RM. Others can do that too, if they think there will be a consensus for change. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME it is Dahomey Amazons, and yes, WP:NOTCENSORED.XavierItzm (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)