Talk:Ghana Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article Evaluation: Ghana Empire

The article on the Ghana Empire is rated as start-class, meaning that this article is is developing and is incomplete. This article is also the topic of two different WikiProject Africa/Mali/Mauritania and WikiProject Former Countries. The article was relevant to the topic and there were some distractions that led me off topic. I think that these distractions are due to the fact that it is still a developing article, so more could be added in or taken out to keep the readers on track with the topic. I would say that the article is neutral. The author did a good job at keeping the article biased, and I didn't see any opinions that would make anything biased. A lot of the topics in this article didn't have complete thoughts. I wouldn't say that any of the topics were overrepresented, but there were a couple that were underrepresented. I topic of Etymology only had a couple of sentences, while the economy had multiple paragraphs. Most of the references are from book sources, but from the links that were given, they all support the claims that were given in the article. I didn't notice any citation errors, and the information comes from neutral sources. The information seems up to date, although I am not too familiar with the topic. Most of the conversations in the Talk page are older, it seemed that this article has had a lot more work put into it, because in 2004, people were saying that this article needed work and didn't have the correct information. Since then, there has been conversation about more information being put in, and little talk about having wrong citations and confusing topics. We have gone over the different regions in Africa in our class, but haven't really had a focus on Ghana. Otherwise, they bring up the same main topics and ideas that we have used in the first couple of chapters in the textbook

Page move and remove[edit]

I don't think I'm sold on this page move to "Wagadou Empire". The standard Wikipedia policy for article titles is to use the most common English name, which in this case is pretty clearly "Ghana Empire" (9 Engl-lang Google hits for "Wagadou Empire" vs. 13,200 for "Ghana Empire"). Nor can I turn up any evidence of a scholarly consensus for "Wagadou Empire"; Google Scholar has one hit for Wagadou Empire and 47 for Ghana Empire, and the few African history books I have in the house go for "Ghana Empire" also. Since the page-mover didn't move any of the redirects, I'm moving it back for now to avoid the double redirects, but if there's a compelling reason to move everything back I'll be happy to help out! --Dvyost 16:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I would have moved it back if you hadn't. The most common names are unquestionably "Ghana Empire" or "Kingdom of Ghana" - SimonP 17:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

im not to sure about this page it didnt have wat i was looking for and this was my last site to look at. out of all the pages i looked at i cant find anything and i was hoping i would finr sonthing good but i was wrongGhana."

DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE... IT'S FAKE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Racial Bias[edit]

Added what little I know about the capital city of the empire (Koumbi). The name wasn't even in the article, it originally said the Arabs lived in stone structures in one section of the twin-city while the Africans lived in mud huts in the other, so I changed that too.

" In addressing the rulers' origin, the Tarikh al-Fettash provides three different opinions, one that they were Blake (i.e. Soninke), another that they were Wangara (i.e. Mande). Al-Kati favored this interpretation in view of the fact that their genealogies linked them to this group, adding "What is certain is that they were not blacks" (min al-sawadin).[5] "

The source for this bold statement is given as "Houdas & Delafosse 1913, p. 78, translation from Levtzion 1973, p. 19" however the page given is in French. Dude, you're quoting Delafosse from 1913. Don't you have a more recent source? On how and why this very early anthropology is problematic:

(Current Anthropology, JSTOR) A Useless Colonial Science? Practicing Anthropology in the French Colonial Empire, circa 1880–1960

Emmanuelle Sibeud

Current Anthropology, Vol. 53, No. S5, The Biological Anthropology of Living Human Populations: World Histories, National Styles, and International Networks (April 2012), pp. S83-S94 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOI: 10.1086/662682 Article Stable URL:

Delafosse’s skepticism as well as van Gennep’s controversial antagonism suggest that implementing physical anthropology practices in the French Empire was indeed an uneven and intricate process, arousing now and then debates contributing to as well as challenging the evolutions of anthropology’s conflicting subspecialities. Racism was a by-product of this process. Anthropologists were requested to provide a scientific frame legitimizing everyday and symbolic colonial segregation. Studying how they did actually fit in colonial projects and practices thus points to spaces and logics where colonial racism was, at least partly, crafted, and it also enables us to take a closer look at the many actors involved and the various ways they dealt with one another.

MrSativa (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


I don't get it... they say dou means "town and then say wagadou is "land of herds"... shouldn't it be "town of herds?"--Darkmusashi 02:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Can you please Make it more kid friendly. Im in 7 grade and i dont get it at all!!

Actually no, it said that dou means "herd"; so it would inevitably mean "land of herds". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabenu (talkcontribs) 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wagadou <> Ouagadougou ?[edit]

Would anyone more knowledgeable than me know if it is just a coincidence that the capital of nearby Burkina is Ouagadougou, which is pronounced exactly like Wagadou but with an added "goo" at the end?

According to Wikipedia, Ouagadougou comes from "Wogodogo", and was renamed that (from "Kumbi Tenga") in 1441, and means "where people get honour and respect"...

Whereas this article says Wagadou means "land of herds" in Mande, but existed as the name for the country (Ghana Empire, capital "Kumbi Saleh") somewhat earlier on (750-1240)...

Well the similar sounding names may really be a coincidence, but they sure sound similar to me! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have found a number of internet sites that state the actual name is "Wagadugu" as well as some that support "Wagadou." Does anyone know which is correct?

Wagadou is the correct form. Wagadugu is only for the Mossi state in burkina faso. Scott Free 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On some new scholarly info...[edit]

I put in info from the study by Ray Kea. I think it's essential with all the bias inherent in academia concerning Africa to prove civilization in West Africa (where my ancestors hail from) was of indigenous, ancient roots, it just didn't start with some Arab guy arriving on a camel from the Sahara and saying to the locals "hey, let's trade!". Anyways, anyone else with more info on the Tichitt-Walata complex, Ghana's predecessor, as well as the early history of Ghana, is welcome to contribute. Peace. Teth22 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do Prophetofreason (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


This page really needs some work. Every additional edit makes it more and more jumbled. I just finished with the Mali Empire page. i'll try to get to this one, too. in the meantime, can folks at least TRY to organize this into something resembling a respectable article. The Expansion section is one sentence for Christ's sake! Scott Free 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And the etymology section is technically only one sentence as well. The other stuff in it has nothing to do with etymology. {Nabenu- 9:46) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabenu (talkcontribs) 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


jihad is used in many ways, clearly western people try to twist it. But why put in anything. Why when Muslims go to war it is religious and when the west go to war it is just war? I dont think Muslim need religion to go to war, they can just go to war like any other human. I say bring a source that it was inspired by true religion or delete is an OR and an opinion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree good friend. Howevever, in the instance of ghana's destruction, religion was the justifying factor the use of the lesser jihad against the Soninke. it would be improper to ignore this fact just as it would be wrong to omit economic or cultural factors. Upon further reading, I believe the main focus was not forced conversion but gaining access over the trade routes from Kumbi Saleh to Morocco. What made the war possible was the fact that the Ghana Empire was a traditionalist state despite its attempts to accomidate Muslim travelers. I will add this factor in as well because of its importance, but the religious factor should not be removed.

Scott Free 13:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


this small section looks like it was vandalized or soemthing was deleted at some point and hasn't been restored. I don't know what it was supposed to say.Corlyon 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon

"white" rule[edit]

this is likely to stir up a bit of controversy, but sources say that Ghana "after which the empire is said to have had twenty-two kings before the Higira in A.D. 622. These kings are stated to have been 'white', which means Berber; and twenty two more Berber kings ruled in Ghana after the Hegira. Then there was a revolution; the king was killed, and a Negro dynasty succeeded to power. The new kings were of the Soninke branch of the mandingo race and they ruled until 1076. (W.E.F. Ward "A History of Ghana" p. 45-46.) (Lady Lugard, "A Tropical Dependency 90-116")

another response=[edit]

Hi, may I interrupt ? The infos about the white kings come from Abderrahman Sadi, a sudanese historian of the XVIIth century. Like all the sudanese scholars of his time, he was writing in arab language. And he used the arabs terms for "black" and "white" to translate the words "black" and "red" used in the middle-age by the west-african to classify peoples in two categories. The term "red" referred to the Europeans, Arabs, Berbers, Jews but also some Sudaneses. Therefore, it's very likely that the "white kings" were "red" sonike, which means : black. Sources : Serge Bilé and Charles monteil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it absurd, that in the 21st Century, we need to waste time claiming African history for Africans? Isn't there a Wikipedia rule against using outdated sources? And why is it that most of the time we seem to be in conversation with a bunch of white South Africans, trying to impose their apartheid racism on Wikipedia? Talk about a non-NPOV. MrSativa (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


I'm familiar with this data. It's not entirely wrong either. The land that became the Ghana Empire was originally inhabited by desert nomads of Berber extraction (pretty much White). Problem is, the Berbers in this area didn't build or settle anything. The so-called Kings prior to Soninke rule (750 AD approx.) were little more than desert chieftains. It wasn't anything remotely resembling a centralized state let alone an "empire". The Soninke migrated to the area either shortly after or around the same time (after seems more likely). The Soninke conquered the area once their numbers grew large enough, killing the Berber ruler and building a capital (Kumbi Saleh). This info comes from...

  • Stride, G.T & C. Ifeka: "Peoples and Empires of West Africa: West Africa in History 1000-1800". Nelson, 1971

Scott Free 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They apparently weren't rulers of "Ghana" if they were Berber, as Ghana was a Soninke kingdom/empire..Taharqa 06:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


This is getting irritating. I should have put these citations in earlier, but my focus has been on Mali and not "Ghana". Take a look at the following quote from Introduction to African Civilzations by John G. Jackson (Citadel Press, 1970).

  • "We learn from Soninke traditions that the Ghana Empire had its beginning about the year 300 of the Christian era. The first ruling dynasty seems to have been Berber invaders from North Africa. These interlopers remained in power until about 700 A.C., when a leader of the Sisse clan of the Soninkes organized a revolution which ousted the Berbers."

Imperial Ghana or Wagadou was a Soninke state. The rulers of the area (pre-imperial Ghana, if you will) were Berbers. Scott Free 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^Well any mention of Berbers is redundant considering that they had no impact on the development of the Soninke state(Ghana/Wagadou). Ghana was a continuation of the Tichitt-Walata complex and Berber occupation wasn't a cultural advance but actually a repression..

From JSTOR: Archaeology and the Prehistoric Origins of the Ghana Empire:


"Archaeological investigations in southern Mauretania have revealed a wealth of rather spectacular stone masonry villages which were occupied by prehistoric cultivators as early as 1000 B.C. It is argued that the inhabitants of these villages were Negro and very probably Soninke, and that the basic elements of their culture had developed without major influences from outside the area. The apparent sophistication and complexity of this cultural manifestation, combined with the close fit of developments in this area with Carneiro's theory of state formation, suggests that this prehistoric complex represented at least a powerful chiefdom which embodied many of the characteristics of subsequent West African states. The first demonstrable outside influences in the area began about 600 B.C. with the arrival of Libyco-Berbers from North Africa. Rather than causing still further cultural advances, the initial effect of this contact was the collapse of this sociopolitical organization. But with subsequent adjustment, plus the potential from trans-Saharan trade carried out by the North Africans, the basic, pre-existing pattern re-emerged, resulting eventually in a second and much more powerful African political organization in this area - the Ghana Empire."

It was almost made to seem as if Berbers were the first people in that area and the Soninke simply invaded their land and took over their kingdom, when it was the exact opposite. It was made to seem as if "Ghana"(the actual Soninke state that developed under Soninke organization) is attributed to outside influence, however, it is clearly stated that outside influence was merely a stagnation of the socio-political organization which preceded it(Berbers had nothing to do with the formation of the "ghanaian" cultural complex), and the Soninke regroups around the time the empire was formed. Obviously a continuation of Tichitt-Walata and Berbers simply lived in the area(same space) at the time.. I don't see why they're relevant to "Ghana" other than the fact that they stagnated its development and were traders. Excuse my rhetoric if this wasn't the implication but the fact that this wasn't elaborated on left too many unnecessary open question.

Also see A. Holl, "Background to the Ghana Empire: Archaeological investigation on the transition to statehood in the Dar Tichitt Region (Mauritania)". Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, no.4 (1985),pp.73-115.

Quoting Scott Free:

"The so-called Kings prior to Soninke rule (750 AD approx.) were little more than desert chieftains. It wasn't anything remotely resembling a centralized state let alone an "empire".

Ok, so why are we mentioning them as founders of "Ghana"(white rule). Are we suggesting that they ruled over a small chiefdom created by Soninke people?

Quoting you again:

"The Soninke migrated to the area either shortly after or around the same time (after seems more likely)."

Migrated from where? According to Munson, Holl, and others the Soninke have been in the area since the Tichitt-Walata complex at least.... Berbers interrupted their way of life until they regrouped basically.Taharqa 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal, I think[edit]

i'm glad we're having this discussion. i'm not promoting a "white rule" scenario. as someone said previously, Berbers are hardly white. nor am i trying to take anything away from the soninke (or berbers for that matter) as far as cultural and political advancement is concerned. i'm simply stating that from the sources I have read, Berbers lived in the heart of what would become the Wagadou Empire FIRST. I think we are being hung up over textual and gramatic usage. As far as the Berbers being relevant, THEY ARE RELEVANT BECAUSE THEY WERE THERE. Saying they are not relevant to the history of Wagadou is like saying Native Americans weren't relevant to the founding of the United States. I'm not trying to give credit where it is not due. I have no dog in this fight as far as whom founded what where. I just don't want this article to fall apart. we gotta include the berber contribution (as little as it might be to this article) cuz if we don't, we're no better than the folks who deny black african contribution to ancient egyptScott Free 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

^I understand your concern for the article and your points are valid and well taken, but again, recent archaeology and historical sources indicate that Berbers were not there first and Ghana/Wagadou can be seen as a continuation of the Tichitt-walta complex in the same regions of south-east Mauritania. The native american analogy doesn't work imo given the fact that Europeans weren't always in America while Soninke are thought to have been in this region of Mauritania for many centuries prior(before Berbers). They(berbers) are relevant in that they were there, but not in that they were the first there or the creators of that civilization(which was continued by the Soninke). Again, I'm quoting Munson..

Quote(pay special attention to what's in bold):

"The first demonstrable outside influences in the area began about 600 B.C. with the arrival of Libyco-Berbers from North Africa. Rather than causing still further cultural advances, the initial effect of this contact was the collapse of this sociopolitical organization. But with subsequent adjustment, plus the potential from trans-Saharan trade carried out by the North Africans, the basic, pre-existing pattern re-emerged, resulting eventually in a second and much more powerful African political organization in this area - the Ghana Empire."

^You see, I take nothing away from the Berber contributions either, but the question is what are you suggesting their contribution to the formation of the Ghana empire actually was other than co-existing in the said region? It is wrong to credit them with the founding of "Ghana/Wagadou" as Soninke indeed were not waiting on Libyco-Berbers from North Africa to create a civilization for them, and inversely they actually "collapsed" the former socio-political organization in the area upon their arrival. There was no reported cultural contribution to Ghana from Berbers besides the possibility that they may have exchanged some ideas and traded merchandise however, as emphasized, the Ghana empire was a continuation of cultural complexes already in place before the arrival of Berbers who had minimal impact on Soninke way of life other than sharing the same space and eventually being pushed out. Certainly if they ruled over any such cheiftoms my point is, what does this have to do with tichitt-walata > Wagadou > Ghana Empire/Soninke state? Neither "Ghana" nor "Wagadou" are Berber words, so this alone should say a lot. Therefore, calling any chiefdoms that may have been in the area, "pre-imperial Ghana" is mis-leading given that there is no shared continuity between these chiefdoms and its rulers to the Soninke state of Wagadou, which is seen by most mainstream historians/archaeologists as a continuation of the tichitt-walata and the Tagant Plateau civilization.

I'll give you one more quote for now from's history section of modern Mali and the Ghana empire.

"The Ghana Empire began when the Soninke people joined forces to resist the raids of pastoral nomads. Nomads herding animals in the fringes of the desert, the Sahel, posed a threat to the early Soninke who lived south of the Sahara as agriculturalists. During times of drought, the nomads would raid the villages to the south in search of water and pastures for their herds. To protect themselves from these raids, the communities of African farmers joined forces, possibly to form a loose federation of states that eventually became the kingdom of Ghana."

^This indeed coincides with what Munson and others have reported..Taharqa 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can roll with that.

Scott Free 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

^Great! I'm glad that you indeed get what I was trying to convey.. Wasn't trying at all to seem contentious btw.. And I love the Mali (Empire) article! Taharqa 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Response 2[edit]

Berber doesn't, and never has, equaled white anyway. - Unsigned comment

^^This is Indeed correct, not all Berbers are what everyone would consider "white", especially the Tuareg. Maybe a lot of the Amazigh would come under such social definitions, with whom I presume this was being applied, but essentially Berber is a language group and nothing more...Taharqa 17:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

IN response to response 2===[edit]

"Berber doesn't, and never has, equaled white anyway.."

So? Most of them are caucasoid or Caucasians. Tuaregs are a multi-racial cultural group. If you know anything, you should that the berbers being caucasoid alone is enough for eurocentrics and other "historians" to use their presence in Africa to attempt to trash black achievement. Ghana was not a berber empire. It was a NEGRO empire. People everywhere should know this fact! Berbers are a cool people. I don't hate berbers or anything. I am just sick and tired of people taking away credit from which credit is due. Look for example at the Great Zimbabwe. Look at the crap people are saying on the talk pages there. Shoot, when people saw the Great Zimbabwe, they acted as if they were puzzled. Then they saw the Lemba, a bantu-speaking, congoid-looking people. As soon as they found out that the lemba had jewish ancestry,(It is not even a lot. It is like a slice of semetic ancestry) they {western media, historians, society,etc.} gave the credit of Zimbabwe to the lembas. Now, I ought to tell you, go and ask any jew in the world whether a lemba is a jew and he will more likely tell you "No". Look on wiki if you must know. The lembas are not Jewish enough to be considered jews, not even to be considered cousins to the Ethiopian Jews who are black. However, when it comes to the Good Old zimbabwe, they are the most MIXED-RACE JEWISH people who ever existed. NOTICE, their Hebrew ancestry is not considered at all until it is time to claim black civilizations. If, this is how people act when it comes to people like the lemba with distant caucasian ancestry, How do you think people will act you even go as far as to mention the fully caucasian Berbers even when there is absolutely no evidence of berber influence on the Ghana civilization. It is one thing if we are talking about Egypt or Aksum. I am not an afrocentrist. [I believe Egypt was a mixed society {some were white, some were brown, some were mixed-race, a few were black} and from what I have read in the history books, Aksumites were though mostly black, were also part yemenite(arab)], however, I will not sit here while people here white-wash an OBVIOUSLY black civilization by claiming some mysterious Berber connection. Berbers had empires alright but,Ghana wasn't one of them. Ghana was a Soninke empire. Soninke were the rulers of ghana. If you have to, please STRESS these facts in the Ghana article. Be just as careful with Mali and other black african civilizations. ---Mimi, 12/17/07


Good post - However, in regards to Egypt; it depends what era you are talking about. Egypt is more mixed now, due to invasions throughout history. I do believe that ancient Egypt - pre-dynastic and dynastic, were black-skinned Africans. Blacks come in all shades - without being mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Beware of vandalisation[edit]

Some douchebag wrote this at the end of the sectio "Decline": Islamamamamam. the king crapped his pants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 545lljkr (talkcontribs) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Movement discussion[edit]

I noticed that the page had been moved from Ghana Empire to Kingdom of Ghana. I disagree and moved it back. However, I am not pigheaded enough to believe my opinion is the only one that counts. Let us all discuss this change to the page before doing anything drastic. I could very well be wrong, and this page should be moved to kingdom of Ghana. However, I think the matter needs further discussion. Personally, I think we should stick with empire for the following reasons...

  1. 1 - The Ghana state held sway over multiple areas which can be seen clearly from looking at the map.
  2. 2 - Much literature regarding the Ghana state refers to it as an empire. I did a cursory search of books available on googlebooks and found 660 references for "kingdom of Ghana" as opposed to 665 for "empire of Ghana" and 720 for "Ghana Empire".
  3. 3 - Empires tend to be multicultural as well as multiregional. Ghana is a definate example of this where a core Soninke population collected taxes from Fulani and Tuareg populations on its periphery.

Please let me know what you think so we can better this page for everyone. i by no means wish to step on anyone's shoes. Scott Free (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"rabidly anti-muslim"[edit]

Not sure how suitable the word "rabid" is to describe the Sosso peoples anti-muslim stance —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to join African history Wikiproject[edit]

Any editors with a specific interest in African history are welcome to check out a new project proposal: African history. This is not meant as a substitute for the Africa Wikiproject. Instead it would rank 'Africa' as a parent project, but editors with a specific interest in history would concentrate on improving African history on Wikipedia. For more details click here or here here.

Ackees (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Economy section[edit]

I would correct the vandalism of the Economy section but do not know how. (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


"The Empire grew poor from the trans-Saharan trade in gold and salt. This trade produced an increasing surplus, allowing for larger urban centres. It also encouraged territorial expansion to gain control over the lucrative trade routes." It sounds to me like the Empire grew RICH, not poor. (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I've fixed it. - SimonP (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Al Bakhri[edit]

The section mentioning al Bakhri needs editing help. It introduces his biolraphy late in the article after he has already been mentioned.John D. Croft (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Link of Ghana Rulers[edit]

The list of rulers of the Ghana empire was undone, and I found a link that might serve it justice. has a list of the rulers, but the dates are circa-dated for the most part. Would this be feasible for addition for this page. Contact me as soon as you can LeftAire (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Original Research and Additional Citation tags[edit]

Hi editors,

These two tags (OR and additional citation), can't they be removed? The article as far as I can see has been improved though it would be nice to also reflect the oral tradition of the people published in reliable sources. Too much reliance has been placed on the Arab chronicles with little reference to the people who actually lived there. They also have a rich tradition and as long as it is published in reliable sources and peer reviewed, I see why not it should not be reflected in the article. Apart from that, does anyone have any objection to them being removed? I was trying to find out who put the tags in so I can message them to read their concerns, but that has proved difficult. The tags were there since 2011. I would like to know what other editors think.

RegardsTamsier (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for the two tags to be removed. Although I didn't add them I feel that both tags have some validity. Aa77zz (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The tags were added in this edit.Aa77zz (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Aa77zz. Tamsier (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads-up. Well, the article has improved a lot and has gotten rid of most the OR I'd say and since I didn't specify my tags on the Talk Page, feel free to remove them. On a related note: the section rulers does not specify its source(s) and I am a bit concerned about statements such as these:

  • "This now seems the likely history of the complex society that can be documented at Koumbi-Saleh." under Contributions of archeological research - no source
  • "These "kings" were presumably the rulers of the territorial units often called kafu in Mandinka." under Government - no source, own research?

But since someone is working on the article, the tags do not add much. Cheers, Pim Rijkee (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks PimRijkee. At the moment I am working on the Sundiata Keita article. After I've finished if it remains like that I will try and find sources for the relevant sections. Thanks again. Tamsier (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ghana Empire or Wagadou Empire[edit]

I've changed the name of the article back to Ghana Empire. A consensus needs to be established here before any change is made.

WP:Title begins with "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." At present 9 of the sources listed in this article have Ghana in the title – none have Wagadou.

Google search on Books gives 69 hits for "Wagadou Empire" but 9,400 with "Ghana Empire". Aa77zz (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Ghana Empire serves best. Wagadou is unrecognizable. To those fearing it might be cause confusion with the modern republic of Ghana, it is worth remembering the coincidence is deliberate. Modern Ghana was named in honor of the Ghana Empire. Walrasiad (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The mention of "Wagadou Empire" in the first line of the lead cites pages 509-516 of Lange 2004. The name is not supported by this reference. A search using google books:give no occurrence of Wagadou in the specified page range – and no occurrence of "Wagadou Empire" in the book. I've therefore deleted the mention in the lead. Aa77zz (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusion notice[edit]

The present version is a bad rip-off of the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed.) article, stuffed up with some random WP:OR. The text is very confusing, there are many superfluous repetitions, a deluge of unimportant details, and the writing style is chatty rather than encyclopedic. --El Cazangero (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not try to improve it? The E of I article is online here. Aa77zz (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the article will benefit from a more "african" approach. Of course it is important what different sources say. But it should mainly present the facts (as far as they are known) first and then MAYBE mention this whole european/middle east obsession on whether the ruling class was black or white. Jack Bornholm (talk)

Ghana meaning[edit]

According to this article

Ghana means "warchief" Ahendra (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ghana Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghana Empire. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

New map proposal[edit]

I've noticed that the current map in my opinion is not standard when compared to the rest of the site. I'm wondering if this map would receive the consent of the editors. This is all in interest of creating a rather uniform appearance throughout the site. I made sure to overlay the existing map over the proposed new one to retain the shape, dimensions, et cetera. I've attempted to maintain the formatting (.svg, template from wikipedia), the only significant concerns that I have with the map is the color of the Empire and the cropping.

It is understandable that it may be rejected. Xyr8 (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change